skip to main content
10.1145/3210377.3210412acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesspaaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Accurate Traffic Splitting on Commodity Switches

Published:11 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Traffic splitting is essential for load balancing over multiple servers, middleboxes, and paths. Often the target traffic distribution is not uniform (e.g., due to heterogeneous servers or path capacities). A natural approach is to implement traffic split in existing rule matching tables in commodity switches. In this paper we suggest an analytical study of such an approach. To do that, we relate the description of distributions in switches to signed representations of positive integers. We suggest an optimal algorithm that minimizes the number of rules needed to represent a weighted traffic distribution. Since switches often have limited rule-table space, the target distribution cannot always be exactly achieved. Accordingly, we also develop a solution that, given a restricted number of rules, finds a distribution that can be implemented within the limited space. To select among different solutions, we describe metrics for quantifying the accuracy of an approximation. We demonstrate the efficiency of the solutions through extensive experiments.

References

  1. Wieb Bosma. 2001. Signed bits and fast exponentiation. Journal de théorie des nombres de Bordeaux 13, 1 (2001), 27--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Pat Bosshart, Dan Daly, Glen Gibb, Martin Izzard, Nick McKeown, Jennifer Rexford, Cole Schlesinger, Dan Talayco, Amin Vahdat, George Varghese, and David Walker. 2014. P4: Programming protocol-independent packet processors. Computer Communication Review 44, 3 (2014), 87--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Pat Bosshart, Glen Gibb, Hun-Seok Kim, George Varghese, Nick McKeown, Martin Izzard, Fernando A. Mujica, and Mark Horowitz. 2013. Forwarding metamorphosis: Fast programmable match-action processing in hardware for SDN. In ACM SIGCOMM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Richard Draves, Christopher King, Srinivasan Venkatachary, and Brian Zill. 1999. Constructing optimal IP routing tables. In IEEE Infocom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Paul Emberson, Roger Stafford, and Robert I Davis. 2010. Techniques for the synthesis of multiprocessor tasksets. In WATERS. 6--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Rohan Gandhi, Hongqiang Harry Liu, Y. Charlie Hu, Guohan Lu, Jitendra Padhye, Lihua Yuan, and Ming Zhang. 2014. Duet: Cloud scale load balancing with hardware and software. In ACM SIGCOMM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Prasanna Ganesan and Gurmeet Singh Manku. 2004. Optimal routing in Chord. In ACM-SIAM SODA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. C. Hopps. 2000. Analysis of an equal-cost multi-path algorithm. RFC 2992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Hopps and D. Thaler. 2000. Multipath issues in unicast and multicast next-hop selection. RFC 2991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Nanxi Kang, Monia Ghobadi, John Reumann, Alexander Shraer, and Jennifer Rexford. 2015. Efficient traffic splitting on commodity switches. In ACM CoNEXT. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Rick McGeer and Praveen Yalagandula. 2009. Minimizing Rulesets for TCAM Implementation. In IEEE Infocom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Tal Mizrahi, Ori Rottenstreich, and Yoram Moses. 2017. TimeFlip: Using Timestamp-Based TCAM Ranges to Accurately Schedule Network Updates. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 25, 2 (2017), 849--863. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Recep Ozdag. 2012. Intel®Ethernet Switch FM6000 Series-Software Defined Networking. Intel Coroporation (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Parveen Patel, Deepak Bansal, Lihua Yuan, Ashwin Murthy, Albert G. Greenberg, David A. Maltz, Randy Kern, Hemant Kumar, Marios Zikos, Hongyu Wu, Changhoon Kim, and Naveen Karri. 2013. Ananta: Cloud scale load balancing. In ACM SIGCOMM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Ori Rottenstreich and János Tapolcai. 2017. Optimal Rule Caching and Lossy Compression for Longest Prefix Matching. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 25, 2 (2017), 864--878. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. N. J. A. Sloane and Simon Plouffe. 1995. The Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ion Stoica, Robert Morris, David Liben-Nowell, David R. Karger, M. Frans Kaashoek, Frank Dabek, and Hari Balakrishnan. 2003. Chord: A scalable peerto- peer lookup protocol for Internet applications. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 11, 1 (2003), 17--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Subhash Suri, Tuomas Sandholm, and Priyank Ramesh Warkhede. 2003. Compressing two-dimensional routing tables. Algorithmica 35, 4 (2003), 287--300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Richard Wang, Dana Butnariu, and Jennifer Rexford. 2011. OpenFlow-based server load balancing gone wild. In USENIX Hot-ICE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Junlan Zhou, Malveeka Tewari, Min Zhu, Abdul Kabbani, Leon Poutievski, Arjun Singh, and Amin Vahdat. 2014. WCMP:Weighted cost multipathing for improved fairness in data centers. In ACM EuroSys. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Accurate Traffic Splitting on Commodity Switches

    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
      SPAA '18: Proceedings of the 30th on Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
      July 2018
      437 pages
      ISBN:9781450357999
      DOI:10.1145/3210377

      Copyright © 2018 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: 11 July 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SPAA '18 Paper Acceptance Rate36of120submissions,30%Overall Acceptance Rate447of1,461submissions,31%

      Upcoming Conference

      SPAA '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader