Load balancing for parallel forwarding

被引:76
作者
Shi, WG [1 ]
MacGregor, MH [1 ]
Gburzynski, P [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Dept Comp Sci, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E8, Canada
关键词
load balancing; parallel IP forwarding; Zipf-like distribution;
D O I
10.1109/TNET.2005.852881
中图分类号
TP3 [计算技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
Workload distribution is. critical to the performance of network processor based, parallel forwarding systems. Scheduling schemes, that operate at the packet level, e.g., round-robin, cannot preserve packet-ordering within individual TCP connections. Moreover, these schemes create duplicate information in processor caches-and therefore are inefficient in resource utilization. Hashing operates at the flow level and is naturally able to maintain per-connection packet ordering; besides, it does, not pollute caches. A pure hash-based system, however, cannot balance processor load in the face of highly skewed flow-size distributions in the Internet; usually, adaptive methods are needed. In this paper, based on measurements of Internet traffic, we examine the sources of load imbalance in hash-based scheduling schemes. We prove that under certain Zipf-like flow-size distributions, hashing alone is not-able to balance workload. We introduce a new metric to quantify. the effects of adaptive,load balancing on overall forwarding performance. To achieve both load balancing and efficient system. resource utilization, we propose a scheduling scheme that classifies Internet flows: into two categories: the aggressive and the normal and applies different scheduling policies to the two classes of flows. Compared with most state-of-the-art parallel forwarding schemes, our Work exploits flow-level Internet traffic characteristics.
引用
收藏
页码:790 / 801
页数:12
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], P 2004 INT S PERF EV
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1949, Human behaviour and the principle of least-effort
[3]   Packet reordering is not pathological network behavior [J].
Bennett, JCR ;
Partridge, C ;
Shectman, N .
IEEE-ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, 1999, 7 (06) :789-798
[4]   On making TCP more robust to packet reordering [J].
Blanton, E ;
Allman, M .
ACM SIGCOMM COMPUTER COMMUNICATION REVIEW, 2002, 32 (01) :20-30
[5]   Understanding Internet traffic streams: Dragonflies and tortoises [J].
Brownlee, N ;
Claffy, KC .
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE, 2002, 40 (10) :110-117
[6]  
CAO Z, 2000, P IEEE INFOCOM, P332
[7]   Analysis of task assignment policies in scalable distributed web-server systems [J].
Colajanni, M ;
Yu, PS ;
Dias, DM .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS, 1998, 9 (06) :585-600
[8]  
Dittmann G., 2002, SPECTS
[9]   Efficient policies for carrying Web traffic over flow-switched networks [J].
Feldmann, A ;
Rexford, J ;
Caceres, R .
IEEE-ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, 1998, 6 (06) :673-685
[10]   The war between mice and elephants [J].
Guo, L ;
Matta, I .
NETWORK PROTOCOLS, 2001, :180-188