skip to main content
10.1145/1298306.1298346acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

On optimal probing for delay and loss measurement

Published:24 October 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

Packet delay and loss are two fundamental measures of performance. Using active probing to measure delay and loss typically involves sending Poisson probes, on the basis of the PASTA property (Poisson Arrivals See Time Averages), which ensures that Poisson probing yields unbiased estimates. Recent work, however, has questioned the utility of PASTA for probing and shown that, for delay measurements, i) a wide variety of processes other than Poisson can be used to probe with zero bias and ii) Poisson probing does not necessarily minimize the variance of delay estimates.

In this paper, we determine optimal probing processes that minimize the mean-square error of measurement estimates for both delay and loss. Our contributions are twofold. First, we show that a family of probing processes, specifically Gamma renewal probing processes, has optimal properties in terms of bias and variance. The optimality result is general, and only assumes that the target process we seek to optimally measure via probing, such as a loss or delay process, has a convex auto-covariance function. Second, we use empirical datasets to demonstrate the applicability of our results in practice, specifically to show that the convexity condition holds true and that Gamma probing is indeed superior to Poisson probing. Together, these results lead to explicit guidelines on designing the best probe streams for both delay and loss estimation.

References

  1. F. Baccelli and P. Bremaud. Elements of Queueing Theory. Springer Verlag, Applications of Mathematics, second edition, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. F. Baccelli, S. Machiraju, D. Veitch, and J. Bolot. The Role of PASTA in Network Measurement. Computer Communication Review, Proceedings of ACM Sigcomm 2006, 36(4):231--242, 11-15 Sep 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. F. Baccelli, S. Machiraju, D. Veitch, and J. Bolot. Loss Measurement via Probing. Sprint ATL Technical Report No. ATL-020124, February 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. D. Daley and D. Vere-Jones. An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes. Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D. Gaver and P. Lewis. First-order autoregressive gamma sequences and point processes. Adv. Appl. Prob., 12:727--745, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. L. Gradshteyn and L. Ryzhik. Table of Integrals, Series and Products. Academic Press, sixth edition, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. N. Hohn, D. Veitch, K. Papagiannaki and C. Diot. Bridging router performance and queuing theory. In Proc. of ACM SIGMETRICS'04. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. I. I. P. M. (IPPM). http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ippm-charter.html, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Machiraju, D. Veitch, F. Baccelli, and J. Bolot. Adding Definition to Active Probing. In ACM Computer Communication Review, April 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Tariq, A. Dhamdhere, C. Dovrolis, and M. Ammar. Poisson versus Periodic Path Probing (or, Does PASTA Matter)? In ACM Internet Measurement Conf., pages 119--124, Berkeley, CA, Oct 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Ott. The covariance function of the virtual waiting time process in an M/G/1 queue. Adv. App. Prob., 9, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Papagiannaki, S. Moon, C. Fraleigh, P. Thiran, F. Tobagi and C. Diot. Analysis of Measured Single-hop Delay from an Operational Backbone Network In Proceedings of IEEE Infocom, June 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. D. Papagiannaki, D. Veitch and N. Hohn. Origins of Microcongestion in an Access Router. In Proceedings of Passive and Active Measurement Conference., 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. V. Paxson. End-to-end routing behavior in the internet. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. V. Paxson. End-to-end Internet packet dynamics. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 7(3):277--292, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. K. Petersen. Ergodic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. Roughan. A Comparison of Poisson and Uniform Sampling for Active Measurements. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, 24(12):2299--2312, Dec 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. J. Sommers, P. Barford, N. Duffield, and A. Ron. Improving accuracy in end-to-end packet loss measurement. In ACM SIGCOMM'05, pages 157--168, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. L. Takács. Introduction to the Theory of Queues. Oxford University Press, New York, 1962.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. The Network Simulator - ns-2, 2004. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. R. Wolff. Poisson Arrivals see Time Averages. Operations Research, 3(2):223--231, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Y. Zhang, N. Duffield, and V. Paxson. On the Constancy of Internet Path Properties. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Workshop, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. On optimal probing for delay and loss measurement

          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
            IMC '07: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement
            October 2007
            390 pages
            ISBN:9781595939081
            DOI:10.1145/1298306

            Copyright © 2007 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: 24 October 2007

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate277of1,083submissions,26%

            Upcoming Conference

            IMC '24
            ACM Internet Measurement Conference
            November 4 - 6, 2024
            Madrid , AA , Spain

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader