Queuing Theory Tutorial

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment
Session 1813
Traffic Behavior and
Queuing in a QoS
Environment
NetworkingTutorials
Prof.DimitriP.Bertsekas
DepartmentofElectricalEngineering
M.I.T.
Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 1

Objectives
Providesomebasicunderstandingofqueuingphenomena
Explaintheavailablesolutionapproachesandassociated
tradeoffs
Giveguidelinesonhowtomatchapplicationsandsolutions

Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Priority/sharedservicesystems
Networksofqueues
Hybridsimulation(demo)

Outline
Basicconcepts
Performancemeasures
Solutionmethodologies
Queuingsystemconcepts
Stabilityandsteadystate
Causesofdelayandbottlenecks
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues

Performance Measures
Delay
Delayvariation(jitter)
Packetloss
Efficientsharingofbandwidth
Relativeimportancedependsontraffictype(audio/video,
filetransfer,interactive)
Challenge:Provideadequateperformancefor(possibly)
heterogeneoustraffic

Solution Methodologies
Analyticalresults(formulas)
Pros:Quickanswers,insight
Cons:Ofteninaccurateorinapplicable
Explicitsimulation
Pros:Accurateandrealisticmodels,broadapplicability
Cons:Canbeslow
Hybridsimulation
Intermediatesolutionapproach
Combinesadvantagesanddisadvantagesofanalysisandsimulation

Examples of Applications
Analytical Modeling Discrete-Event Simulation
Hybrid DES
M/G/./. & M/G/./. & Decomposition
Analysis Scenarios with Explicit
G/G/./. G/G/./. with Kleinrock DES only with
and
FIFO Priority Independence Explicit Traffic
Background
Analysis Analysis Assumption
Traffic
Single Link with FIFO Service
Best Effort Service for Standard Data Traffic Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar

Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Behavior Traffic
"Chancing It" with Best Effort Service for
Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Voice, Video and Data
Single Link with QoS-Based Queueing
Using QoS to differentiate service levels for Yes (loss of
N/A N/A Yes Yes
the same type of traffic accuracy)
Using QoS to support different requirements
for different application types given as a Highly
N/A N/A Yes Yes
detailed study of setting Cisco Router approximate
queueing parameters
Network of Queues
Hop-by-hop Yes (some loss of Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with
General network model extending the
N/A Analysis (loss accuracy - e.g., traffic function of network minimal loss of
previous QoS queueing model
of accuacy) shaping) complexity) accuracy]
Hop-by-hop Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with

Reduction of the general model to a
N/A Analysis (loss N/A function of network minimal loss of
representative end-to-end path
of accuacy) complexity) accuracy]

Queuing System Concepts:

Arrival Rate, Occupancy, Time in the
System
Queuingsystem
Datanetworkwherepacketsarrive,waitinvariousqueues,receive
serviceatvariouspoints,andexitaftersometime
Arrivalrate
Longtermnumberofarrivalsperunittime
Occupancy
Numberofpacketsinthesystem(averagedoveralongtime)
Timeinthesystem(delay)
Timefrompacketentrytoexit(averagedovermanypackets)

Stability and Steady-State

Asinglequeuesystemisstableif
packet arrival rate < system transmission capacity
Forasinglequeue,theratio
packet arrival rate / system transmission capacity
iscalledtheutilizationfactor
Describestheloadingofaqueue
Inanunstablesystempacketsaccumulateinvariousqueues
and/orgetdropped
Forunstablesystemswithlargebufferssomepacketdelays
becomeverylarge
Flow/admissioncontrolmaybeusedtolimitthepacketarrivalrate
Prioritizationofflowskeepsdelaysboundedfortheimportanttraffic
Stablesystemswithtimestationaryarrivaltrafficapproacha
steadystate
Littles Law
Foragivenarrivalrate,thetimeinthesystemisproportional
topacketoccupancy
N=T
where
N:average#ofpacketsinthesystem
:packetarrivalrate(packetsperunittime)
T:averagedelay(timeinthesystem)perpacket
Examples:
Onrainydays,streetsandhighwaysaremorecrowded
Fastfoodrestaurantsneedasmallerdiningroomthanregular
restaurantswiththesamecustomerarrivalrate
Largebufferingtogetherwithlargearrivalratecauselargedelays

Explanation of Littles Law

Amusementparkanalogy:peoplearrive,spendtimeat
varioussites,andleave
Theypay$1perunittimeinthepark
Therateatwhichtheparkearnsis$Nperunittime(N:
average#ofpeopleinthepark)
Therateatwhichpeoplepayis$Tperunittime(:traffic
arrivalrate,T:timeperperson)
Overalonghorizon:
Rateofparkearnings=Rateofpeoplespayment
or
N=T

Delay is Caused by Packet Interference

Ifarrivalsareregularorsufficientlyspacedapart,noqueuing
delayoccurs
Departure
Arrival
T
2
4
3
1 ime Times
Times
RegularTraffic
Departure
Arrival
T
2
4
3
1 ime Times
Times
Irregularbut
SpacedApartTraffic

Burstiness Causes Interference

Notethatthedeparturesarelessbursty
Queuing
Time
4
3
2
1 Delays
BurstyTraffic

Burstiness Example
Different Burstiness Levels at Same Packet Rate
Source: Fei Xue and S. J. Ben Yoo, UCDavis, On the Generation and Shaping Self-similar Traffic in Optical Packet-switched Networks, OPNETWORK 2002
Packet Length Variation Causes

Interference
Time
QueuingDelays
Regulararrivals,irregularpacketlengths

High Utilization Exacerbates Interference

Time
QueuingDelays
Astheworkarrivalrate:
(packetarrivalrate*packetlength)
increases,theopportunityforinterferenceincreases

Bottlenecks
Typesofbottlenecks
Ataccesspoints(flowcontrol,prioritization,QoSenforcementneeded)
Atpointswithinthenetworkcore
Isolated(canbeanalyzedinisolation)
Interrelated(networkorchainanalysisneeded)
Bottlenecksresultfromoverloadscausedby:
Highloadsessions,or
Convergenceofsufficientnumberofmoderateloadsessionsatthe
samequeue

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping
Time
Thedeparturetrafficfromabottleneckismoreregularthanthe
arrivaltraffic
Theinterdeparturetimebetweentwopacketsisatleastas
largeasthetransmissiontimeofthe2ndpacket

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Incomingtraffic Outgoingtraffic
Exponential
interarrivals
gap
Bottleneck
90%utilization

Incomingtraffic Outgoingtraffic
Small
Medium
Bottleneck
90%utilization
Large

Packet Trains
Interdeparturetimesforsmallpackets

Variable packet sizes

Histogramofinterdeparturetimesforsmallpackets
#ofpackets
Variablepacketsizes
Peakssmeared
Constantpacketsizes
sec

Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Poissontraffic
Batcharrivals
Exampleapplicationsvoice,video,filetransfer
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues

Poisson Process with Rate
Interarrivaltimesareindependentand
exponentiallydistributed
Modelswelltheaccumulatedtrafficofmany
independentsources
Theaverageinterarrivaltimeis1/
(secs/packet),soisthearrivalrate
(packets/sec)
Interarrival
Time Times

Batch Arrivals
Somesourcestransmitinpacketbursts
Maybebettermodeledbyabatcharrivalprocess(e.g.,bursts
ofpacketsarrivingaccordingtoaPoissonprocess)
Thecaseforabatchmodelisweakeratqueuesafterthefirst,
becauseofshaping
Interarrival
Time Times

Markov Modulated Rate Process (MMRP)

State 0 State 1
OFF ON
Stay in each state an exponentially

distributed time,
Transmit according to different model
(e.g., Poisson, deterministic, etc) at each state
Extension:Modelswithmorethantwostates

Source Types
Voicesources
Videosources
Filetransfers
Webtraffic
Interactivetraffic
DifferentapplicationtypeshavedifferentQoSrequirements,
e.g.,delay,jitter,loss,throughput,etc.

Source Type Properties
Characteristics QoS Model

Requirements
Voice *Alternatingtalk Delay<~150ms *Twostate(onoff)Markov
spurtsandsilence Jitter<~30ms ModulatedRateProcess(MMRP)
intervals. Packetloss<~1% *Exponentiallydistributedtimeat
*Talkspurtsproduce eachstate
constantpacketrate
traffic
Video *Highlyburstytraffic Delay<~400ms Kstate(onoff)MarkovModulated
(whenencoded) Jitter<~30ms RateProcess(MMRP)
*Longrange Packetloss<~1%
dependencies
Interactive *Poissontype Zeroornearsero Poisson,Poissonwithbatcharrivals,
*Sometimesbatch packetloss TwostateMMRP
FTP
arrivals,orbursty, Delaymaybe
telnet important
web orsometimesonoff

Typical Voice Source Behavior

MPEG1 Video Source Model

TheMPEG1MMRPmodelcanbeextremelybursty,andhas
longrangedependencybehaviorduetothedeterministic
framesequence
Diagram Source: Mark W. Garrett and Walter Willinger, Analysis, Modeling, and Generation of Self-Similar VBR Video Traffic, BELLCORE, 1994
Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels
Singlevs.multipleservers
FIFO,priority,andsharedservers
Demo
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues

Device Queuing Mechanisms

CommonqueueexamplesforIProuters
FIFO:FirstInFirstOut
PQ:PriorityQueuing
WFQ:WeightedFairQueuing
Combinationsoftheabove
Servicetypesfromaqueuingtheorystandpoint
Singleserver(onequeueonetransmissionline)
Multipleserver(onequeueseveraltransmissionlines)
Priorityserver(severalqueueswithhardprioritiesonetransmission
line)
Sharedserver(severalqueueswithsoftprioritiesonetransmission
line)

Single Server FIFO

SingletransmissionlineservingpacketsonaFIFO(FirstIn
FirstOut)basis
Eachpacketmustwaitforallpacketsfoundinthesystemto
completetransmission,beforestartingtransmission
DepartureTime=ArrivalTime+WorkloadFoundintheSystem+
Transmissiontime
Packetsarrivingtoafullbufferaredropped
Arrivals
Transmission
Line

FIFO Queue
PacketsareplacedonoutboundlinktoegressdeviceinFIFOorder
Device(router,switch)multiplexesdifferentflowsarrivingonvariousingress
portsontoanoutputbufferformingaFIFOqueue

Multiple Servers
Multiplepacketsaretransmittedsimultaneouslyonmultiple
lines/servers
Headofthelineservice:packetswaitinaFIFOqueue,and
whenaserverbecomesfree,thefirstpacketgoesintoservice
Arrivals
Transmission
Lines

Priority Servers
Packetsformpriorityclasses(eachmayhaveseveralflows)
ThereisaseparateFIFOqueueforeachpriorityclass
Packetsoflowerprioritystarttransmissiononlyifnohigher
prioritypacketiswaiting
Prioritytypes:
Nonpreemptive(highprioritypacketmustwaitforalowerpriority
packetfoundundertransmissionuponarrival)
Preemptive(highprioritypacketdoesnothavetowait)
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Interm.
High
Low
Line
Priority
Priority
Priority

Priority Queuing
Packetsareclassifiedintoseparatequeues
E.g.,basedonsource/destinationIPaddress,source/destinationTCPport,etc.
Allpacketsinahigherpriorityqueueareservedbeforealowerpriority
queueisserved
Typicallyinrouters,ifahigherprioritypacketarriveswhilealowerpriority
packetisbeingtransmitted,itwaitsuntilthelowerprioritypacketcompletes

Shared Servers
Againwehavemultipleclasses/queues,buttheyareserved
withasoftpriorityscheme
Roundrobin
Weightedfairqueuing
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Weight
Weight
Line
Weight 1031

Round-Robin/Cyclic Service
Roundrobinserveseachqueueinsequence
Aqueuethatisemptyisskipped
Eachqueuewhenservedmayhavelimitedservice(atmostkpackets
transmittedwithk=1ork>1)
Roundrobinisfairforallqueues(aslongassomequeuesdo
nothavelongerpacketsthanothers)
Roundrobincannotbeusedtoenforcebandwidthallocation
amongthequeues.

Fair Queuing
Thisschedulingmethodisinspiredbythemostfairofmethods:
Transmitonebitfromeachqueueincyclicorder(bitbybitroundrobin)
Skipqueuesthatareempty
Toapproximatethebitbybitprocessingbehavior,foreachpacket
Wecalculateuponarrivalitsfinishtimeunderbitbybitroundrobin
assumingallotherqueuesarecontinuouslybusy,andwetransmitbyFIFO
withineachqueue
Transmitnextthepacketwiththeminimumfinishtime
Importantproperties:
Priorityisgiventoshortpackets
Equalbandwidthisallocatedtoallqueuesthatarecontinuouslybusy
i-1
iDeparture
-1
Finish
Arrival Time
timestimes
of Packet i

Weighted Fair Queuing

Fairqueuingcannotbeusedtoimplementbandwidthallocationandsoft
priorities
Weightedfairqueuingisavariationthatcorrectsthisdeficiency
Letwkbetheweightofthekthqueue
Thinkofroundrobinwithqueuektransmittingwkbitsuponitsturn
Ifallqueueshavealwayssomethingtosend,thekthqueuereceivesbandwidth
equaltoafractionwk/iwiofthetotalbandwidth
Fairqueuingcorrespondstowk=1
Priorityqueuingcorrespondstotheweightsbeingveryhighaswemoveto
higherpriorities
Again,todealwiththesegmentationproblem,weapproximateasfollows:
Foreachpacket:
Wecalculateitsfinishtime(undertheweightedbitbybitroundrobin
scheme)
Wenexttransmitthepacketwiththeminimumfinishtime

Weighted Fair Queuing Illustration

Weights:
Queue 1 = 3
Queue 2 = 1
Queue 3 = 1

Combination of Several Queuing

Schemes
Examplevoice(PQ),guaranteedb/w(WFQ),BestEffort
(CiscosLLQimplementation)

Demo: FIFO
FIFO
Bottleneck
90%utilization

Demo: FIFO Queuing Delay

Applications have different
requirements
Video
delay, jitter
FTP
packet loss
Control beyond best effort

needed
Priority Queuing (PQ)
Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)

Demo: Priority Queuing (PQ)
PQ
Bottleneck
90%utilization

Demo: PQ Queuing Delays
PQFTP
FIFO
PQVideo

Demo: Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
WFQ
Bottleneck
90%utilization

Demo: WFQ Queuing Delays
PQFTP
WFQFTP
FIFO
WFQ/PQVideo

Queuing: Take Away Points

Choiceofqueuingmechanismcanhaveaprofoundeffecton
performance
Toachievedesiredservicedifferentiation,appropriatequeuing
mechanismscanbeused
Complexqueuingmechanismsmayrequiresimulation
techniquestoanalyzebehavior
Improperconfiguration(e.g.,queuingmechanismselectionor
weights)mayimpactperformanceoflowprioritytraffic

Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
M/M/1M/M/m/k
M/G/1G/G/1
Demo:Analyticsvs.simulation
Networksofqueues

M/M/1 System
Nomenclature:MstandsforMemoryless(apropertyofthe
exponentialdistribution)
M/M/1standsforPoissonarrivalprocess(whichismemoryless)
M/M/1standsforexponentiallydistributedtransmissiontimes
Assumptions:
ArrivalprocessisPoissonwithratepackets/sec
Packettransmissiontimesareexponentiallydistributedwithmean1/
Oneserver
Independentinterarrivaltimesandpackettransmissiontimes
Transmissiontimeisproportionaltopacketlength
Note1/issecs/packetsoispackets/sec(packet
transmissionrateofthequeue)
Utilizationfactor:=/stablesystemif1)
Delay Calculation
Let
Q=Averagetimespentwaitinginqueue
T=Averagepacketdelay(transmissionplusqueuing)
NotethatT=1/+Q
AlsobyLittleslaw
N=TandNq=Q
where
Nq=Averagenumberwaitinginqueue
Thesequantitiescanbecalculatedwithformulasderivedby
Markovchainanalysis(seereferences)

M/M/1 Results
Theanalysisgivesthesteadystateprobabilitiesof
numberofpacketsinqueueortransmission
P{npackets}=n(1)where=/
Fromthiswecangettheaverages:
N=/(1)
T=N/=/(1)=1/()
N
T
1/

1
0


Example: How Delay Scales with

Bandwidth
Occupancyanddelayformulas
N=/(1) T=1/() =/
Assume:
Trafficarrivalrateisdoubled
Systemtransmissioncapacityisdoubled
Then:
Queuesizesstayatthesamelevel(staysthesame)
Packetdelayiscutinhalf(andaredoubled
Aconclusion:Inhighspeednetworks
propagationdelayincreasesinimportancerelativetodelay
buffersizeandpacketlossmaystillbeaproblem

M/M/m, M/M/ System

SameasM/M/1,butithasm(or)servers
InM/M/m,thepacketattheheadofthequeuemoves
toservicewhenaserverbecomesfree
Qualitativeresult
Delayincreasestoas=/mapproaches1
Thereareanalyticalformulasfortheoccupancy
probabilitiesandaveragedelayofthesesystems

Finite Buffer Systems: M/M/m/k

TheM/M/m/ksystem
SameasM/M/m,butthereisbufferspaceforatmostk
packets.Packetsarrivingatafullbufferaredropped
Formulasforaveragedelay,steadystateoccupancy
probabilities,andlossprobability
TheM/M/m/msystemisusedwidelytosize
telephoneorcircuitswitchingsystems

Characteristics of M/M/. Systems

Advantage:Simpleanalyticalformulas
Disadvantages:
ThePoissonassumptionmaybeviolated
Theexponentialtransmissiontimedistributionisan
approximationatbest
Interarrivalandpackettransmissiontimesmaybe
dependent(particularlyinthenetworkcore)
Headofthelineassumptionprecludesheterogeneousinput
trafficwithpriorities(hardorsoft)

M/G/1 System
SameasM/M/1butthepackettransmissiontime
distributionisgeneral,withgivenmean1/and
variance2
Utilizationfactor=/
PollaczekKinchineformulafor
Averagetimeinqueue=(2+1/2)/2(1)
Averagedelay=1/+(2+1/2)/2(1)
Theformulasforthesteadystateoccupancy
probabilitiesaremorecomplicated
Insight:As2increases,delayincreases

G/G/1 System
SameasM/G/1butnowthepacketinterarrivaltime
distributionisalsogeneral,withmeanand
variance2
WestillassumeFIFOandindependentinterarrival
timesandpackettransmissiontimes
Heavytrafficapproximation:
Averagetimeinqueue~(2+2)/2(1)
Becomesincreasinglyaccurateas

Demo: M/G/1
Packetinterarrivaltimes Capacity
exponential(0.02)sec 1Mbps
Packetsize
1250bytes Packetsizedistribution:
(10000bits) exponential
constant
lognormal
Whatistheaveragedelayandqueuesize?

Demo: M/G/1 Analytical Results
PacketSize
DelayT(sec) QueueSize(packets)
Distribution
Exponential
mean=10000 0.02 1.0
variance =1.0*108
Constant
mean=10000 0.015 0.75
variance=N/A
Lognormal
mean=10000 0.06 3.0
variance=9.0*108

Demo: M/G/1 Simulation Results

AverageDelay(sec) AverageQueueSize(packets)

Demo: M/G/1 Limitations

Applicationtrafficmixnotmemoryless
Video
constantpacketinterarrivals
Http
burstytraffic
Delay
PKformula
Simulation

Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Preemptivevs.nonpreemptive
Cyclic,WFQ,PQsystems
Demo:Simulationresults
Networksofqueues

Non-preemptive Priority Systems

Wedistinguishbetweendifferentclassesoftraffic(flows)
Nonpreemptivepriority:packetundertransmissionisnot
preemptedbyapacketofhigherpriority
PKformulafordelaygeneralizes
Transmission
Class
Class
Class123Arrivals
Arrivals
Arrivals
Interm.
High
Low
Line
Priority
Priority
Priority

Cyclic Service Systems

Multipleflows,eachwithitsownqueue
Fairsystem:Eachflowgetsaccesstothetransmissionlinein
turn
Severalpossibleassumptionsabouthowmanypacketseach
flowcantransmitwhenitgetsaccess
FormulasfordelayunderM/G/1typeassumptionsare
available
Transmission
Class 3
2
1
Arrivals
Line

Weighted Fair Queuing

Acombinationofpriorityandcyclicservice
Noexactanalyticalformulasareavailable

Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues
ViolationofM/M/.assumptions
Effectsondelaysandtrafficshaping
Analyticalapproximations

Two Queues in Series

Firstqueueshapesthetrafficintosecondqueue
Arrivaltimesandpacketlengthsarecorrelated
M/M/1andM/G/1formulasyieldsignificanterrorforsecond
queue
FirstQueue
SecondQueue
Time
Time

Two bottlenecks in series
Exponential
interarrivals
Bottleneck Bottleneck
Noqueuingdelay
Delay

Approximations
Kleinrockindependenceapproximation
Performadelaycalculationineachqueueindependentlyofother
queues
Addtheresults(includingpropagationdelay)
Note:Intheprecedingexample,theKleinrockindependence
approximationoverestimatesthequeuingdelayby100%
Tendstobemoreaccurateinnetworkswithlotsoftraffic
mixing,e.g.,nodesservingmanyrelativelysmallflowsfrom
severaldifferentlocations

Outline
Basicconcepts
Sourcemodels
Servicemodels(demo)
Singlequeuesystems
Networksofqueues
Hybridsimulation
Explicitvs.aggregatedtraffic
ConceptualFramework
Demo:PQandWFQwithaggregatedtraffic

Basic Concepts of Hybrid Simulation

Aimstocombinethebestofanalyticalresultsandsimulation
Achievesignificantgaininsimulationspeedwithlittlelossof
accuracy
Dividesthetrafficthroughanodeintoexplicitand
background
Explicittrafficissimulatedaccurately
Backgroundtrafficisaggregated
Theinteractionofexplicitandbackgroundismodeledeither
analyticallyorthroughafastsimulation(oracombination)
Explicit
Background

Explicit Traffic
Modeledindetail,includingtheeffectsofvariousprotocols
Eachpacketsarrivalanddeparturetimesarerecorded(together
withotherdataofinterest,e.g.,loss,etc.)alongeachlinkthatit
traverses
Departuretimesatalinkarethearrivaltimesatthenextlink(plus
propagationdelay)
Objective:Ateachlink,giventhearrivaltimes(andthepacket
lengths),determinethedeparturetimes
.. .
Departure
Arrival
Time
a
d
Delay
1
4
2
3 times
times
at aatlink
the link

Aggregated Traffic
Simplifiedmodeling
Wedontkeeptrackofindividualpackets,onlyworkloadcounts
(numberofpacketsorbytes)
Wegenerateworkloadcounts
byprobabilistic/analyticalmodeling,or
bysimplifiedsimulation
Aggregated(orbackground)trafficislocal(perlink)
Shapingeffectsarecomplextoincorporate
Somedependencesbetweenexplicitandbackgroundtraffic
alongachainoflinksarecomplicatedandareignored

Hybrid Simulation (FIFO Links):

Conceptual Framework
Giventhearrivaltimeakofthekthexplicitpacket
Generatetheworkloadwkfoundinqueuebythekthpacket
Fromakandwkgeneratethedeparturetimeofthekthpacketas
DepartureTimedk=ak+wk+sk
whereskisthetransmissiontimeofthekthpacket
ARRIVAL TIMES
Explicit Explicit
aK wK a K+1 w K+1
Time
Background Background
Explicit Explicit
d K = aK + wK + sK
DEPARTURE TIMES 77
Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc.
Simulating the Background Traffic Effects

Useatrafficdescriptorforthebackgroundtraffic(e.g.,carried
byspecialpackets)
Trafficdescriptorincludes:
Trafficvolumeinformation(e.g.,packets/sec,bits/sec)
Probabilitydistributionofinterarrivaltimes
Probabilitydistributionofpacketlengths
Timeintervalofvalidityofthedescriptor
Generatewkusingoneofseveralideasandcombinations
thereof
Successivesampling(forFIFOcase)
Steadystatequeuelengthdistribution(ifwecangetit)
Simplifiedsimulation(microsimappliestocomplexqueuing
disciplines)

Hybrid Simulation (FIFO Case)

CriticalQuestion:Givenarrivaltimesakandak+1,workloadwk,andbackground
trafficdescriptor,howdowefindwk+1?
Arrival times/Workload found
a1 w1 a2 w2 a3 w
. . .
3
.. . Time
d1 = a1 + w1 + s1 d2 = a2 + w2 + s2 d3 = a3 + w3 + s3
Departure times
Note:wk+1consistsofwkandtwomoreterms:
Backgroundarrivalsinintervalak+1ak
(Minus)transmittedworkloadinintervalak+1ak
Mustcalculate/simulatethetwoterms
Thefirsttermissimulatedbasedonthetrafficdescriptorofthebackgroundtraffic
Thesecondtermiseasilycalculatedifthequeueiscontinuouslybusyinak+1ak
Short Interval Case (Easy Case)

Shortintervalak+1ak(i.e.,ak+1<dk)
Queueisbusycontinuouslyinak+1ak
Sowk+1isquicklysimulated
Samplethebackgroundtrafficarrivaldistributiontosimulatethenew
workloadarrivalsinak+1ak
Dotheaccounting(addtowkandsubtractthetransmittedworkloadin
ak+1ak)
Short Interval wk+1 = wk + (New bkg arrivals) - (Old bkg transmissions)
a k w k a k+1 w k+1
.. . Time
dk d k+1
Long Interval Case
Longintervalak+1ak(i.e.,ak+1>dk)
Queuemaybeidleduringportionsoftheintervala k+1ak
Needtogenerate/simulate
Thenewarrivalsinak+1ak
Thelengthsofthebusyperiodsandtheidleperiods
Canbedonebysamplingthebackgroundarrivaldistributionineachbusy
period
.. .
Time
Long
a
w
d
Idle
Busy
kk+1 Periods
Periods
Interval
k Otheralternativesarepossible
k+1

Steady-State Queue Length Distribution

Iftheintervalbetweentwosuccessiveexplicitpacketsisvery
long,wecanassumethatthequeuefoundbythesecond
packetisinsteadystate
So,wecanobtainwk+1bysamplingthesteadystate
distribution
Appliestocaseswherethesteadystatedistributioncanbe
foundorcanbereasonablyapproximated
M/M/1andotherM/M/.Queues
SomeM/G/.systems

Micro Simulation: Conceptual Framework
Handlescomplexqueuingsystems
Micropacketsaregeneratedtorepresenttrafficloadwithinthecontext
ofthequeueonly(i.e.,theyarenottransmittedtoanyexternallinks)
Forlongintervals,whereconvergencetoasteadystateislikely
Trytodetectconvergenceduringthemicrosim
Estimatesteadystatequeuelengthdistribution
Samplethesteadystatedistributiontoestimatewk+1
Microsimspeedsupthesimulationwithoutsacrificing
accuracy
Microsimprovidesageneralframework
Appliestononstationarybackgroundtraffic
AppliestononFIFOservicemodels(withpropermodification)

Examples of Applications
Analytical Modeling Discrete-Event Simulation
Hybrid DES
M/G/./. & M/G/./. & Decomposition
Analysis Scenarios with Explicit
G/G/./. G/G/./. with Kleinrock DES only with
and
FIFO Priority Independence Explicit Traffic
Background
Analysis Analysis Assumption
Traffic
Single Link with FIFO Service
Best Effort Service for Standard Data Traffic Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar

Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Behavior Traffic
"Chancing It" with Best Effort Service for
Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes
Voice, Video and Data
Single Link with QoS-Based Queueing
Using QoS to differentiate service levels for Yes (loss of
N/A N/A Yes Yes
the same type of traffic accuracy)
Using QoS to support different requirements
for different application types given as a Highly
N/A N/A Yes Yes
detailed study of setting Cisco Router approximate
queueing parameters
Network of Queues
Hop-by-hop Yes (some loss of Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with
General network model extending the
N/A Analysis (loss accuracy - e.g., traffic function of network minimal loss of
previous QoS queueing model
of accuacy) shaping) complexity) accuracy]
Hop-by-hop Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with

Reduction of the general model to a
N/A Analysis (loss N/A function of network minimal loss of
representative end-to-end path
of accuacy) complexity) accuracy]

Demo End-to-end Delay: Baseline Network
Trafficmodeledas
1)Explicittraffic
2)Backgroundtraffic
Target Flow: ETE delay as a function of ToS
Targetflow:SeattleHoustonmodeledusingexplicittraffic
VaryingitsTypeofService(ToS)
BestEffort(0)
StreamingMultimedia(4)
Explicit Simulation Results for Target Flow
Totaltrafficvolume
500Mbps
Timemodeled
35minutes
Simulationduration
31hours

Hybrid Simulation Results for Target Flow
Totaltrafficvolume
500Mbps
Timemodeled
35minutes
Simulationduration
14minutes

Comparison: Hybrid vs Explicit Simulation

References
Networking
BertsekasandGallager,DataNetworks,PrenticeHall,1992
DeviceQueuingImplementations
Vegesna,IPQualityofService,Ciscopress.com,2001
http://www.juniper.net/techcenter/techpapers/200020.pdf
ProbabilityandQueuingModels
BertsekasandTsitsiklis,IntroductiontoProbability,AthenaScientific,2002,
http://www.athenasc.com/probbook.html
Cohen,TheSingleServerQueue,NorthHolland,1992
Takagi,QueuingAnalysis:AFoundationofPerformanceEvaluation.(3
Volumes),NorthHolland,1991
GrossandHarris,FundamentalsofQueuingTheory,Wiley,1985
Cooper,IntroductiontoQueuingTheory,CEEPress,1981
OPNETHybridSimulationandMicroSimulation
SeeCaseStudiespapersin
http://secure.opnet.com/services/muc/mtdlogis_cse_stdies_81.html

Queuing Theory Tutorial

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Queuing Theory Tutorial

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Traffic Behavior and Queuing in a QoS Environment

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 1

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 2

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 3

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 4

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 5

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 6

Best Effort Service for LRD/Self-Similar

Hop-by-hop Yes (Run time a Yes [Fast with

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 7

Queuing System Concepts:

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 8

Stability and Steady-State

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 10

Explanation of Littles Law

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 11

Delay is Caused by Packet Interference

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 12

Burstiness Causes Interference

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 13

Packet Length Variation Causes

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 15

High Utilization Exacerbates Interference

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 16

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 17

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 18

Bottlenecks Cause Shaping

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 19

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 20

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 21

Variable packet sizes

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 22

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 23

Poisson Process with Rate

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 24

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 25

Markov Modulated Rate Process (MMRP)

Stay in each state an exponentially

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 26

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 27

Source Type Properties

Characteristics QoS Model

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 28

Typical Voice Source Behavior

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 29

MPEG1 Video Source Model

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 31

Device Queuing Mechanisms

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 32

Single Server FIFO

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 33

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 34

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 35

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 36

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 37

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 38

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 39

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 40

Weighted Fair Queuing

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 41

Weighted Fair Queuing Illustration

Copyright 2002 OPNET Technologies, Inc. 42

Combination of Several Queuing