Marco Iorio
Abstract
Several emerging classes of interactive applications are demanding for extremely low-latency to be fully unleashed, with edge computing generally regarded as a key enabler thanks to reduced delays. This paper presents the outcome of a large-scale end-to-end measurement campaign focusing on task-offloading scenarios, showing that moving the computation closer to the end-users, alone, may turn out not to be enough. Indeed, the complexity associated with modern networks, both at the access and in the core, the behavior of the protocols at different levels of the stack, as well as the orchestration platforms used in data-centers hide a set of pitfalls potentially reverting the benefits introduced by low propagation delays. In short, we highlight how ensuring good QoS to latency-sensitive applications is definitely a multi-dimensional problem, requiring to cope with a great deal of customization and cooperation to get the best from the underlying network.
- N. Abbas, Y. Zhang, A. Taherkordi, and T. Skeie. 2018. Mobile Edge Computing: A Survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 5, 1 (Feb. 2018), 450--465. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- A. Banks, E. Briggs, K. Borgendale, and R. Gupta. 2019. MQTT Version 5.0. Technical Report. OASIS Open. https://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/mqtt-v5.0.pdf Accessed on: May 31, 2021.Google Scholar
- N. Cardwell, Y. Cheng, C. S. Gunn, S. H. Yeganeh, and V. Jacobson. 2016. BBR: Congestion-Based Congestion Control: Measuring Bottleneck Bandwidth and Round-Trip Propagation Time. Queue 14, 5 (Oct. 2016), 20--53. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Charyyev, E. Arslan, and M. H. Gunes. 2020. Latency Comparison of Cloud Datacenters and Edge Servers. In Proc. 2020 IEEE Global Communications Conf. (GLOBECOM). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1--6. Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Chen and X. Ran. 2019. Deep Learning With Edge Computing: A Review. Proc. IEEE 107, 8 (Aug. 2019), 1655--1674. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Z. Chen et al. 2017. An Empirical Study of Latency in an Emerging Class of Edge Computing Applications for Wearable Cognitive Assistance. In Proc. 2nd ACM/IEEE Symp. on Edge Computing. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--14. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Choy, B. Wong, G. Simon, and C. Rosenberg. 2012. The brewing storm in cloud gaming: A measurement study on cloud to end-user latency. In Proc. 11th Annual Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games (NetGames). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1--6. Google ScholarCross Ref
- CNCF Staff. 2020. CNCF Survey 2020. Technical Report. Cloud Native Computing Foundation. https://www.cncf.io/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/CNCF_Survey_Report_2020.pdf Accessed on: May 31, 2021.Google Scholar
- G. Fairhurst, A. Sathiaseelan, and R. Secchi. 2015. Updating TCP to Support Rate-Limited Traffic. RFC 7661. RFC Editor.Google Scholar
- I. Fette and A. Melnikov. 2011. The WebSocket Protocol. RFC 6455. RFC Editor.Google Scholar
- P Garcia Lopez et al. 2015. Edge-Centric Computing: Vision and Challenges. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 45, 5 (Sept. 2015), 37--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Gettys and K. Nichols. 2011. Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in the Internet: Networks without Effective AQM May Again Be Vulnerable to Congestion Collapse. ACM Queue 9, 11 (Nov. 2011), 40--54. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Gorlatova, H. Inaltekin, and M. Chiang. 2020. Characterizing task completion latencies in multi-point multi-quality fog computing systems. Comput. Netw. 181 (Nov. 2020), 1--11. Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Handley, J. Padhye, and S. Floyd. 2000. TCP Congestion Window Validation. RFC 2861. RFC Editor.Google Scholar
- G. Huston. 2003. Measuring IP Network Performance. The Internet Protocol J. 6, 1 (March 2003), 2--19.Google Scholar
- X. Jiang et al. 2019. Low-Latency Networking: Where Latency Lurks and How to Tame It. Proc. IEEE 107, 2 (Feb. 2019), 280--306. Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Naik. 2017. Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP. In Proc. 2017 IEEE Int. Systems Engineering Symp. (ISSE). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1--7. Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Nguyen, A. Mehta, C. Klein, and E. Elmroth. 2019. Why Cloud Applications Are Not Ready for the Edge (Yet). In Proc. 4th ACM/IEEE Symp. on Edge Computing. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 250--263. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Rescorla. 2018. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3. RFC 8446. RFC Editor.Google Scholar
- W. Shi et al. 2016. Edge Computing: Vision and Challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 3, 5 (Oct. 2016), 637--646. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Z. Wu and H. V. Madhyastha. 2013. Understanding the Latency Benefits of Multi-Cloud Webservice Deployments. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 43, 2 (April 2013), 13--20. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Xu et al. 2020. Understanding Operational 5G: A First Measurement Study on Its Coverage, Performance and Energy Consumption. In Proc. Annu. Conf. ACM SIGCOMM. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 479--494. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Zhang et al. 2017. Mobile-Edge Computing for Vehicular Networks: A Promising Network Paradigm with Predictive Off-Loading. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 12, 2 (June 2017), 36--44. Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- When latency matters: measurements and lessons learned
Recommendations
On evaluating the differences of TCP and ICMP in network measurement
Network measurement is an important approach to understand network behaviors, which has been widely studied. Both TCP and ICMP are applied in network measurement, while investigating the differences between the measured results of these two protocols is ...
TCP symbiosis: congestion control mechanisms of TCP based on Lotka-Volterra competition model
Interperf '06: Proceedings from the 2006 workshop on Interdisciplinary systems approach in performance evaluation and design of computer & communications sytemsIn this paper, we propose TCP Symbiosis, which has a robust, self-adaptive and scalable congestion control mechanism for TCP. Our method is quite different from existing approaches. We change the window size of a TCP connection in response to ...
Monarch: a tool to emulate transport protocol flowsover the internet at large
IMC '06: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurementThis paper proposes Monarch, a novel tool that accurately emulates transport protocol flows from an end host controlled by its user to any other Internet host that responds to simple TCP, UDP, or ICMP packet probes. Since many Internet hosts and routers ...
Comments