NASA NTRS1993
SRI International (SRI) has developed an improved queueing algorithm, known as Stochastic Fairness Queueing (SFQ), for best-effort traffic (i.e., traffic that does not require any guaranteed service). SFQ is a probablistic variant of strict fair queueing where instead of a single queue being allocated per flow, a fixed number of queues are used and a hash function maps the IP source and destination to a particular queue. A seed to the hash function is also perturbed occasionally to help distribute the flows amongst different queues when more than one flow maps to the same queue during the lifetime of the flow. SFQ provides 'fair' access by trying to ensure that each flow from source to destination host obtains equal access to the available bandwidth. This report covers a series of experiments performed on DARTnet evaluating the behavior and performance of SFQ against a FIFO queueing discipline. These experiments were designed to show SFQ's advantages and performance, and include tests demonstrating: Fair utilization of available resources; Starvation prevention; Graceful degradation under overload conditions; and Resource usage. In general, the experiments do show that SFQ is better than FIFO queueing at allocating bandwidth equally among a set of flows. SFQ also prevents a stream from dominating the available bandwidth, which seems to be a tendency with FIFO queueing (i.e., if a flow demands more than its share of the available bandwidth, with FIFO queueing that stream receives a disproportionate amount when compared to flows demanding less than their share). Furthermore, SFQ seems to reward 'nice' users of the network by providing a lower variance in delay and more throughput when their resource demand is less than their available share. Both SFQ and FIFO queueing seem to degrade fairly well as the network becomes saturated and to recover well as the network becomes less congested. Not unexpectedly, FIFO queueing is a little more efficient than SFQ-the delays are less and the throughput slightly higher because SFQ requires more processing. However, the performance difference between the two queueing disciplines is relatively small. However, the experiments do point out some interesting behavior. FIFO queueing can behave better than SFQ with seed perturbation. We recommend further evaluation of the hash function and the seed perturbation technique. There are probably weaknesses in their current selection that cause this unexpected behavior. SFQ also seems to possess good scaling properties. To verify this, more experiments with a larger number of streams from more hosts need to be executed and examined, including the staggered introduction of streams. Staggering the streams may prove important, because graphs in the degradation experiment revealed some unexpected increases and decreases in throughput, which should be examined. This may again be due to the interaction of the hash function with the seed perturbation but it may also be related to some other unknown problem.