|
Internet NREN performance from U.S. to world at the end of 2000
|
|
Introduction
At the end of 2000 the
PingER project was monitoring,
from
30 monitoring sites in 15 countries, over
600 host at 420 sites in 72 countries with over 3300 monitoring
site remote site
pairs. These countries hold over 79% of the world'spopulation
and over 90% of the
world's online population.
The list of countries monitored also included all but
3 of the 42 countries with International
Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) membership.
In our own community, over 50% of
High Energy and Nuclear Physics (HENP) collaborator sites are
explicitly monitored as
remote sites by PingER project. takine the major HENP
experiments at the end of 2000 the percentage of sites monitored was:
Atlas (37%), BaBar (68%), Belle (23%), CDF (73%), CMS (31%),
D0 (60%), LEP (44%), Zeus (35%), PPDG (100%), RHIC(64%).
Below is shown the deployment of PingER at this time.
There were 2 archive sites, at SLAC and FNAL, and
countries not monitored are shown in green. Also shown on
the map are the
Beacon sites that all monitoring sites monitor.
The most important single metric that we measure
related to performance is the packet loss. We define
a loss of >= 12% as being bad, 5% to 12% as being
very poor, 2.5% to 5% as being poor, 1% to 2.5% as being
acceptable and < 1% as being good. The
rationale behind these deinitions can be found in
Tutorial on Internet Monitoring & PingER at SLAC.
Performance from US to rest of the world
In the maps below, for
each of the monitored countries there is a bar chart identifying the
major performance characteristics of the country as seen
from the U.S.
The major performance characteristics are shown for the month of
December October 1999. The values are medians for all the
sites in the country.
The blue bar on the legend is drawn with a height of
20 units, i.e. 20% for loss, 20/10 or 2 seconds for RTT and
20% unreachabilty.
The table below shows in more detail the performance to the countries
which from Jan 2000 thru November 2000 had a median
very poor to bad packet loss. The table is ordered with the
worst at the top. There may be someindication that performance
some parts of South America (Argentina, Peru and Chile) may
be improving, possibly as the Global crossing initiative reaches into
those countries. In general, however, there does not appear to be much
improvement in the year 2000 for the countries in the table.
Performance from Switzerland to rest of the world
Similar maps are shown below for measurements made from
CERN Switzerland. CERN does not measure
as many sites. By comparing with the maps measured from
the US, it is seen that, as expected, performance is better
to Europe, but otheriwse it looks similar.
Developed Nations
Plots of the Internet quality seen from (a href="http://www.es.net">
ESnet sites to many of the major developed regions of
the world are shown below. The quality is defined
following as the maximum TCP rate as defined in
The macroscopic behavior of the
TCP congestion avoidance algorithm by
Mathis, Semke, Mahdavi & Ott in
Computer Communication Review, 27(3), July 1997, which
provides a short and useful
formula for the upper bound on the transfer rate:
Rate < (MSS/RTT)*(1 / sqrt(p))
where:
Rate: is the TCP transfer rate
MSS: is the maximum segment size (fixed for each Internet path, typically
1460 bytes)
RTT: is the round trip time (as measured by TCP)
p: is the packet loss rate.
The y axis is on a log scale so a straight line
is an exponetial. It is seen that performance is improving,
faster
in N. America (bear in mind these measurements
are made from the US).
Comparing the performance of major resaerch and education
networks
in the US seen below, it is apparent that performance
(packet loss) is good (< 1%), ESnet to ESnet is best
and is holding under 0.1%, .edu to .edu sites
(most of the .edu site measured are on
Internet 2)
are improving more
rapidly but still are about 4 times worse than ESnet, and
XIWT sites (70% .com) are also improving but about
5-10 times worse than ESnet.
Performance from the rest of the world to India
Below is seen a chart of packet loss measured from several sites
around the world to sites in India. The Indian sites are
TIFR/Mumbai, Ernet/Upune, Sara, and IISC. The performance in
general is seen to be poor to bad.
Performance vs population
Using the population figures in the
NUA Internet Surveys it is interesting to see how
performance (packet loss) seen from the US compares to the
number of people online in the country. Such a chart is shown
below as a scatter plot excluding N. America and W. Europe.
It is seen that Singapore, Australia, New Zealand,
S. Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Estonia and Israel all have
over 15% of their populations online
and have good to acceptable performance. Russia,
Latvia, Maylasia and Indonesia on the other hand all
have bad performance.
The chart below shows the fractions of the world's population
that have various levels of Internet performance as seen
from the US. The pie chart with it shows the
fraction of the world's population with a given
Internet performance seen from the US.
The table shows similar information but
more numerically.
Summary
- Most of world is monitored
- In general performance is improving.
But expectations are increasing
- N. America, W. Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore & Israel are OK
- Latin America poor to bad
- FSU poor to bad
- Africa hardly monitored generally poor to bad
Back to top
Created January 29, 2000.
URL:
http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/tools.html
Comments to
iepm-l@slac.stanford.edu