Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wmax Wmax
Fig. 1: The Window Growth Function of BIC Fig. 2: The Window Growth Function of CUBIC
1
HTCP
Experiment 1: TCP Friendliness in Short-RTT Networks
(Simulation script available in the BIC web site): 0.8
0.6
We test five high speed TCP variants: CUBIC, BIC, HSTCP,
Scalable TCP, and HTCP. We set RTT of the flows to be 0.4
around 10 ms and vary the bottleneck bandwidth from 20 Mbps
to 1 Gbps. Fig. 5 shows the throughput ratio of the long-term 0.2
TCP flows over the high-speed flows (or TCP friendly ratio)
measured from these runs. 0
20 100 300 500 1000
The surprising result is that BIC and STCP even show worse Link Speed (Mbps)
Fig. 5: TCP-Friendly Ratio in Short-RTT Networks
TCP friendliness over 20Mbps than over 100Mbps. However,
we are still not sure the exact reason for this result. Over 100 1.2
CUBIC
BIC
Mbps, all the high speed protocols show reasonable HSTCP
STCP
TCP/High-Speed Throughput Ratio (%)
1
friendliness to TCP. As the bottleneck bandwidth increases HTCP
from 100Mbps to 1Gbps, the ratios for BIC, HSTCP and STCP 0.8
still use the full bandwidth. Scalable TCP shows the worst TCP
friendliness in these tests followed by BIC and HSTCP.
0.4
Throughput (Mbps)
600
TCP-SACK flows over a short-RTT path (~20ms). These two
paths share a bottleneck link of 2.5Gbps. In this experiment, to 400
see how stable different protocols become as the buffer space
of the bottleneck router varied, we vary the buffer space of the 200
modified for clarity). The actual simulation setup can be found 1000
High-Speed Flow 1
High-Speed Flow 2
in the script above. High-Speed Flow 3
High-Speed Flow 4 BIC
800
Below, we show the throughput graphs from experiments
with 20% buffer in Fig. 8, and with 200% buffer in Fig. 9. By
Throughput (Mbps)
600
inspecting the raw data, we can tell that STCP and HTCP have
some stability issues (this needs to be confirmed with the 400
transmission rate variations (or smaller oscillations) to mean Simulation Time (Seconds)
1000
stability. Control theory defines it somewhat differently: a High-Speed Flow 1
High-Speed Flow 2
stable protocol eventually converges to equilibrium (not High-Speed Flow 3
High-Speed Flow 4 HSTCP
800
necessarily a fair bandwidth share) regardless of the current
state of the protocol. These two notions are somewhat
Throughput (Mbps)
600
various time scales and compare those of various protocols. For 600
[9,10,11]. The results with 20% buffer are shown in Fig 10, and
the results with 200% buffer are shown in Fig 11. We observe 200
600
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Simulation Time (Seconds)
Coefficient of Variation
Throughput (Mbps)
0.4
600
0.3
400
0.2
200
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
Simulation Time (Seconds) 1 5 10 20 40 80
1000 Time Scale (Second)
High-Speed Flow 1
BIC
High-Speed Flow 2
High-Speed Flow 3 Fig. 10: CoV in stability test with 20% buffer
High-Speed Flow 4
800
0.6
CUBIC
BIC
Throughput (Mbps)
HSTCP
600 0.5 STCP
HTCP
Coefficient of Variation
0.4
400
0.3
200
0.2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
0.1
Simulation Time (Seconds)
1000
High-Speed Flow 1 0
High-Speed Flow 2
HSTCP
1 5 10 20 40 80
High-Speed Flow 3
High-Speed Flow 4 Time Scale (Second)
800
600
400 REFERENCES
[1] H. Bullot, R. Les Cottrell, and R. Hughes-Jones, "Evaluation of Advanced
200 TCP Stacks on Fast Long-Distance Production Networks," Second
International Workshop on Protocols for Fast Long-Distance Networks,
February 16-17, 2004, Argonne, Illinois USA
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 [2] C. Jin, D. X. Wei and S. H. Low, "FAST TCP: Motivation, Architecture,
Simulation Time (Seconds)
Algorithms, Performance," In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2004,
1000
High-Speed Flow 1
March 2004
High-Speed Flow 2
High-Speed Flow 3
STCP [3] S. Floyd, “HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows,” RFC 3649,
800
High-Speed Flow 4
December 2003
[4] T. Kelly, “Scalable TCP: Improving Performance in High-Speed Wide
Area Networks,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review,
Throughput (Mbps)
600
Volume 33, Issue 2, pp. 83-91, April 2003
[5] R. Shorten, and D. Leith, "H-TCP: TCP for High-Speed and
400 Long-Distance Networks,” Second International Workshop on Protocols
for Fast Long-Distance Networks, February 16-17, 2004, Argonne,
200
Illinois USA
[6] T. Hatano, M. Fukuhara, H. Shigeno, and K. Okada, "TCP-friendly SQRT
TCP for High Speed Networks," in Proceedings of APSITT 2003,
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 pp455-460, Nov 2003.
Simulation Time (Seconds) [7] C. Casetti, M. Gerla, S. Mascolo, M. Y. Sanadidi, and R. Wang, "TCP
1000
High-Speed Flow 1 Westwood: Bandwidth Estimation for Enhanced Transport over Wireless
High-Speed Flow 2
High-Speed Flow 3 HTCP Links," In Proceedings of ACM Mobicom 2001, pp 287-297, Rome, Italy,
800
High-Speed Flow 4
July 16-21 2001
[8] L. Xu, K. Harfoush, and I. Rhee, "Binary Increase Congestion Control
(BIC) for Fast Long-Distance Networks," In Proceedings of IEEE
Throughput (Mbps)
600
INFOCOM 2004, March 2004
[9] Cheng Jin, David X. Wei and Steven H. Low, “FAST TCP: motivation,
400 architecture, algorithms, performance,” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM
2004, March 2004
200
[10] Yunhong Gu, Xinwei Hong, and Robert Grossman, “Experiences in
Design and Implementation of a High Performance Transport Protocol,”
SC 2004, Nov 6 - 12, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 [11] Sally Floyd, Mark Handley, Jitendra Padhye, and Joerg Widmer,
Simulation Time (Seconds) “Equation-Based Congestion Control for Unicast Applications,”
Fig. 9: Throughput of various protocols in stability test with 200% buffer SIGCOMM 2000.