skip to main content
10.1145/1048935.1050190acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesscConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Traffic-based Load Balance for Scalable Network Emulation

Published:15 November 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

Load balance is critical to achieving scalability for large network emulation studies, which are of compelling interest for emerging Grid, Peer to Peer, and other distributed applications and middleware. Achieving load balance in emulation is difficult because of irregular network structure and unpredictable network traffic. We formulate load balance as a graph partitioning problem and apply classical graph partitioning algorithms to it. The primary challenge in this approach is how to extract useful information from the network emulation and present it to the graph partitioning algorithms in a way that reflects the load balance requirement in the original emulation problem. Using a large-scale network emulation system called MaSSF, we explore three approaches for partitioning, based on purely static topology information (TOP), combining topology and application placement information (PLACE), and combining topology and application profile data (PROFILE). These studies show that exploiting static topology and application placement information can achieve reasonable load balance, but a profile-based approach further improves load balance for even large scale network emulation. In our experiments, PROFILE improves load balance by 50% to 66% and emulation time is reduced up to 50% compared to purely static topology-based approaches.

References

  1. 1. Fugui Wang, P.M., Sarit Mukherjee, Dennis Bushmitch, A Random Early Demotion and Promotion Marker for Assured Services. IEEE Jour. on Selected Areas in Communications, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2. Tao Ye, S.K., David Harrison, Biplab Sikdar, Bin Mo, Hema Tahilramani Kaur, Ken Vastold, Boleslaw Szymanski, Network Management and Control Using Collaborative On-line Simulation. Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications, June 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. 3. D. Katabi, M.H., and C. Rohrs. Internet congestion control for future high bandwidth-delay product environments. in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM. 2002. Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4. Christina Parsa, J.J.G.-L.-A. Improving TCP Congestion Control over Internets with Heterogeneous Transmission Media. in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP). 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5. Oram, A., Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies. March 2001: O'Reilly. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6. Ian Foster, C.K.e., The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure. 1999: Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7. Pei Zheng, L.N. EMPOWER: A Network Emulator for Wireless and Wireline Networks. in Infocom 2003. 2003. San Francisco.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. 8. Rob Simmonds, R.B., and Brian Unger. Applying parallel discrete event simulation to network emulation. in 14th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS 2000). May 28-31, 2000. Bologna, Italy. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9. Brian White, J.L., Leigh Stoller, Robert Ricci, Shashi Guruprasad, Mac Newbold, Mike Hibler, Chad Barb, and Abhijeet Joglekar. An Integrated Experimental Environment for Distributed Systems and Networks. in Proceedings of 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI). December 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10. Amin Vahdat, K.Y., Kevin Walsh, Priya Mahadevan, Dejan Kostic, Jeff Chase, and David Becker. Scalability and Accuracy in a Large-Scale Network Emulator. in Proceedings of 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI). December 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 11. H. Song, X.L., D. Jakobsen, R. Bhagwan, X. Zhang, K. Taura, and A. Chien. The MicroGrid: a Scientific Tool for Modeling Computational Grids. in IEEE Supercomputing (SC 2000). 2000. Dallas, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 12. Jason Liu, a.D.M.N. Learning Not to Share. in Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS 2001). 2001. Lake Arrowhead, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13. C. Walshaw, M.C., S. Johnson, and M. Everett. JOSTLE: Partitioning of Unstructured Meshes for Massively Parallel Machines. in Parallel CFD'94. 1994. Tyoto, Japan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14. F. Pellegrini, J.R. SCOTCH: a software package for static mapping by dual recursive bipartitioning of process and architecture graphs. in High-performance Computing and Networking, Proc. HPCN'96. 1996. Springer, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15. Preis R., D.R., PARTY - A Software Library for Graph Partitioning. Advances in Computational Mechanics with Parallel and Distributed Processing, 1997: p. 63-71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16. Hendrickson, B., Graph Partitioning Models for Parallel Computing. Parallel Computing Journal, 2000. 26(12): p. 1519-1534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 17. B. Hendrickson, R.L., The Chaco User's Guide: Version 2.0. 1994, Sandia Tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18. Kirk Schloegel, G.K., and Vipin Kumar. A New Algorithm for Multi-Objective Graph Partitioning. in Euro-Par'99 Parallel Processing. 1999. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19. Cisco Systems, NetFlow. 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20. Alberto Medina, A.L., Ibrahim Matta, and John Byers. BRITE: An Approach to Universal Topology Generation. in In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunications Systems-MASCOTS'01 . 2001. Cincinnati, Ohio. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21. Paul Barford, M.C. Generating Representative Web Workloads for Network and Server Performance Evaluation. in Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems 1998. 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22. David P. Olshefski, J.N., and Dakshi Agrawal. Inferring Client Response Time at the Web Server. in Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS 2002). 2002. Marina del Rey, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 23. Rong Pan, B.P., Konstantinos Psounis, and Damon Wischik. SHRINK: A Method for Scalable Performance Prediction and Efficient Network Simulation. in IEEE INFOCOM. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. 24. Jaeyeon Jung, B.K., and Michael Rabinovich. Flash crowds and denial of service attacks: Characterization and implications for CDNs and web sites. in Proceeding of 11th World Wide Web conference. 2002. Honolulu, Hawaii. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 25. A. Petitet, S.B., J. Dongarra, B. Ellis, G. Fagg, K. Roche, and S. Vadhiyar. Numerical Libraries and the Grid: The GrADS Experiment with ScaLAPACK. in International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 26. Frumkin, R.F.V.D.W.a.M., NAS Grid Benchmarks Version 1.0. 2002, NASA Ames Research Center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27. James Cowie, H.L., Jason Liu, David Nicol and Andy Ogielski. Towards Realistic Million-Node Internet Simulations. in Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA'99). June 28 - July 1, 1999. Las Vegas, Nevada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28. Robert Ricci, C.A., Jay Lepreau, A Solver for the Network Testbed Mapping Problem. 2002, University of Utah Flux Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 29. K. Devine, B.H., E. Boman, M. St. John, and C. Vaughan. Design of Dynamic Load-Balancing Tools for Parallel Applications. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Supercomputing. 2000. Santa Fe. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SC '03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing
    November 2003
    859 pages
    ISBN:1581136951
    DOI:10.1145/1048935

    Copyright © 2003 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 15 November 2003

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Acceptance Rates

    SC '03 Paper Acceptance Rate60of207submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate1,516of6,373submissions,24%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader