Slashdot Mirror


Network Monitoring Appliance Looks Below 1 Microsecond

eweekhickins writes "Corvil has unveiled a new tool to help network managers cope with increasing pressure to improve performance. This appliance, from the Dublin-based company (with backing from Cisco), passively monitors traffic across networks in segments below 1 microsecond in length and correlates monitoring data with remote appliances and gives a complete picture of latency, jitter, packet loss and other phenomena that affect network and application performance. Corvil CEO Donal Byrne noted that 'If you can drop a millisecond [of latency] off, you're a hero.'"

21 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Re:and again in layman's terms?? by Kazrath · · Score: 2

    I am definitly not a subject matter expert... however using wireshark to trace packets from a specific box to another with intentions of determining and fixing a network issue is much different than activly monitoring and storing all traffic going through your switches. Wireshark is "on-demand" while what they are talking about is "real-time".

    The breakthrough appears to be that it is the fastest of these type of devices available.

  2. Re:and again in layman's terms?? by evil+agent · · Score: 2, Funny

    sorry if I sound stupid. It seems like greak to me.

    That just about says it all...

    --
    End transmission.
  3. Re:Drop a millisecond by BSAtHome · · Score: 2, Interesting

    However, it might be more effective to make your application more tolerant to latency (and fix your TCP window first).

  4. Re:Drop a millisecond by molo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some applications are natively sensitive to latency and jitter. Consider VOIP or teleconferencing, or algorithmic stock trading.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  5. Re:Oh goodie! by mccalli · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now I can get those random stock tips in my email in less milliseconds! I will be rich one day, I will!

    Milliseconds count. Maybe not to your stock tips, but trust me as someone who has spent about a decade in this kind of environment now - sub-millisecond latencies certainly count in automated trading between investment banks/hedge funds/whatever. To the point where people are prepared to pay fortunes to have their machines located physically closer to an exchange.

    For fun, check out arbitrage, and then ponder again why reducing latency might be important in a competitive environment. Think about highly liquid markets, such as spot foreign exchange.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  6. buffering ......... by khasim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Milliseconds count. Maybe not to your stock tips, but trust me as someone who has spent about a decade in this kind of environment now - sub-millisecond latencies certainly count in automated trading between investment banks/hedge funds/whatever. To the point where people are prepared to pay fortunes to have their machines located physically closer to an exchange.

    A more logical reason would be to reduce the possible traffic issues.

    If I'm sitting on the network with a 100Mb/s connection straight to the server ... that's an entirely different scenario than sitting on the other side of the world hooked in through the Internet.

    First off, the chance of a dropped packet (and delay in re-transmitting) is a magnitude smaller when I'm on the network.

    So looking to shave a micro-second/milli-second off of a packet isn't that important or realistic. Humans do NOT make decisions that fast. You'd do better improving the speed of your code or throwing faster hardware at it.
    1. Re:buffering ......... by mccalli · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So looking to shave a micro-second/milli-second off of a packet isn't that important or realistic. Humans do NOT make decisions that fast. You'd do better improving the speed of your code or throwing faster hardware at it.

      Humans make decisions at a minimum of around 200ms I think - that's from memory, so I expect someone to be along and give the real figure soon. But I'm not speaking about humans, I'm speaking about algorithmic trading in a competitive environment. It truly is that significant to remove certainly a millisecond, and why stop there. Think about clustered pricing engines and similar, all trying to price as fast as possible to both a) capture business and b) avoid arbitrage. There definitely is a market for this level of network analysis. I'm on the code-side myself, so I agree that getting your code right is the most important. Throwing faster hardware at it helps however, depending on design, and in some circumstances you take all the speed you can get no matter which source it comes from.

      Not every financial system needs this level of performance, but there are a significant number that do.
      Cheers,
      Ian

    2. Re:buffering ......... by Passresv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey Khasim. Can I say, I have to disagree. Analysing latency on large networks is incredibly important. There are often so many latency-inducing mechanisms between a packet leaving an application and arriving at the other end (misconfigured stacks, poor cabling, misconfigured routers and switches (#1 cause!), greedy applications, messy applications, multicast floods etc etc), that it is impossible to tell what the problem is. Modern networks are straining with latency problems that added bandwidth doesn't always solve. The problem is that if you have a large number of servers and clients and there's a problem - which codebase or hardware do you upgrade? You can't tell, because you don't know who's causing the problem. Only by analysing the network can you tell. As a developer, I use wireshark for this often to find out what the trouble is - asking other coders doesn't help - only when I look at the network I can pinpoint the problem - if you fail to configure your video service properly, a group of managers having a v-conference can blot out your network. But you won't know its happening because its off in building #5 somewhere - nowhere near your main servers.

  7. RIPE NCC Test Traffic services by jjgm · · Score: 3, Informative

    The RIPE NCC's Special Projects group have been offering sub-microsecond latency/jitter/analytical services to ISPs for years. Their data is invaluable and unique, since it measures latency, jitter and packetloss in a single direction (unlike ICMP Ping, which is a round-trip measurement over an asymmetric path) and goes back at least to 2000. The paper claims accuracy to 0.0006 ms, which was good for the time when the product was designed.

    Read about the project here and the paper on TTM [pdf] that was presented at the PAM2001 conference.

    (This isn't what Corvil do.)

  8. Time for token ring? by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some applications are natively sensitive to latency and jitter. Consider VOIP or teleconferencing, or algorithmic stock trading.

    I guess that would depend upon where both points are. One has to be on your network. The other ... ?

    Now, with Ethernet, one machine can hog the switch (I'll guess that they aren't using hubs). What use is shaving a millisecond off the app if you're still vulnerable to someone else hogging the network at the moment that you're trying to complete your transaction?
    1. Re:Time for token ring? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now, with Ethernet, one machine can hog the switch (I'll guess that they aren't using hubs). What use is shaving a millisecond off the app if you're still vulnerable to someone else hogging the network at the moment that you're trying to complete your transaction?


      That's what proper network segmenting is for. The guy that hogs the bandwidth usually has some business need to do so (but not always ;). Anyway, say the CAD guys do large file transfers multiple times a day. Well, you segment them off. That way they can't dominate the switch for that all-important transaction network, which would, of course, have its own segment different from the one where your office clients sit.
    2. Re:Time for token ring? by smellotron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, that is what QOS is for. Segmenting off everyone that wants to do some transfer makes for a fragmented unsummarized network with stretch VLANS all over god and country. Segmenting in little networks is fine...but a disaster in large ones.

      You're missing where one of the parents commented about cases where speed matters. If you're doing algorithmic trading and you're using software QoS, and your competitor is using physical hardware segmentation, your competitor wins (all other things being equal).

    3. Re:Time for token ring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Actually, that is what QOS is for. Segmenting off everyone that wants to do some transfer makes for a fragmented unsummarized network with stretch VLANS all over god and country. Segmenting in little networks is fine...but a disaster in large ones.

      All of which just basically proves how shitty collision-based networking is, especially as network size and speeds increase: You have to throw more and more hardware at it, to preserve performance.

      The only thing that switching and VLANs do, is attempt to rectify a fundamentally flawed physical network protocol by hiding its fundamental nature (switching) or reducing the size of the collision domain (VLANs).

      Because, when you get right down to it - it's still Ethernet, and so, is still basically CSMA/CA, though the switches, VLANs, etc., hide it for the most part.

      But, it raises its ugly head, when you start to scale the network, doesn't it? And, as you do, you have to throw more and more hardware at the problem.

      Token-based networks avoid that. BTW, Token-based doesn't necessarily mean Token Ring. I know, that's a concept that is difficult for many of you to grasp, because when you hear the word "Token", it's like a bell "ringing", and you salivate in response.

      Also, QoS is easier to implement on a token-passing network, by its nature.

  9. Re:and again in layman's terms?? by DigitalCH · · Score: 5, Informative

    The benefit depends on the person using it. Take an investment bank and an algorithmic trading system. Most of your money is made on volume, the faster you reply the more deals you get, the more volume you have, the more money you make. I've seen a lot of presentations at investment banks where every 5 milliseconds they shave off is $50+ million/year more money they make. Keep in mind that most of these companies have gotten to the point where they can do round trip for the whole trade transaction in 5 milliseconds or less. So each millisecond is like a 20% improvement.

  10. Re:and again in layman's terms?? by Virgil+Tibbs · · Score: 2, Funny

    I did of Course mean Greek.
    And that I was "used to" Wireshark.

    FYI, my Greek is much worse, than my first language, English. It is even worse than French and Russian, two other languages I can speak to varying proficiency.
    However, sir, I am very tired.
    At the end of a long day, it is not unusual to think in straight lines while typing nonsense.
    Moreover, thank you kindly sire, for asking God to help me;
    I needed some guidance to help me past morons like you.

    --
    www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
  11. Re:Because you can buy faster hardware. by mccalli · · Score: 4, Informative

    What is the buffer capacity of the server's NIC?... How long does it take to empty it?... What was the guy just before you doing? Did he fill it?

    Sorry, but do you really think people don't do that level of analysis as well as trying to improve the network speed?

    My point is that if you're looking at spending money for a 1 millisecond gain, you've already lost sight of the goal.

    The goal in this kind of app is low latency - every millisecond counts. There are other goals of course, throughput, guaranteed maximums as well as low minimums...but in this case we were specifically discussing latency.

    And that's not even counting a router or everything that can slow down your Internet connection

    Internet connection? Who's talking about an internet connection? Dedicated leased lines direct to the exchange, internal transfer between machines...this kind of stuff isn't One Man And His PC sitting at home trying to day-trade. Yes there's variability, but even so engineering it out as much as possible is certainly an aim.

    All the levels of analysis you describe, from the algorithm right through to the NIC, are already being done. At some point they will be done better, because of a change in available tools. This appears to be one of those tools.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  12. You'll never go faster than the speed of light by NSash · · Score: 3, Informative

    "There is an old network saying: Bandwidth problems can be cured with money. Latency problems are harder because the speed of light is fixed - you can't bribe God."

    A beam of light takes roughly 1/7 of a second to travel around the world. That means that if you're playing on a server on the other side of the world, your ping will always be at least 143 ms. That's a hard physical limit: the only way to decrease that time would be to drill a hole through the Earth, or move closer.

    1. Re:You'll never go faster than the speed of light by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's why I only attend LAN parties in the vacuum of outer space.

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  13. Re:and again in layman's terms?? by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 2, Informative

    It seems quite simple. I took the following from the article:

    They timestamp the packet at some point in the network and when it arrives at the other side they timestamp it again to work out the trip time. Not really rocket science, but they seem to have come up with ways of measuring time pretty accurately at two different places and keeping the clocks in sync or working around clock drift in their measurements.

    The other part of their system is some algorithmic work that correlates packets and tries to work out a profile of the network to allow better tuning of networking parameters or even modifying applications to perform better.

    It's all very useful information to have if you're trying to milk the last bit of performace out of your network. It's useful for single customer applications, but I see ISPs using it to really tune the larger pipes between POPs so that things like VoIP work more efficiently even with lots of customers making and receiving calls in the presence of other traffic. It often isn't enough to say "send these types of packets out first", particularly if one user or application is generating a lot of them and other users are not; you can starve other users or applications of data.

    --
    I drink to make other people interesting!
  14. Re:Because you can buy faster hardware. by doctorcisco · · Score: 5, Informative
    In a financial trading arbitrage environment, that millisecond would literally be worth millions of dollars. Yes, it matters that much. Some of the best and most expensive brains in the software and systems engineering world are paid a whole lot of money to try to gain that millisecond. At least one "dorm room to gazillionaire" story was built on just such an edge in the early 1990's. The resulting trading firm has $10 billion in net profits since 1998. Warning, there be flash here! http://www.citadelgroup.com/

    Do not assume that the people interested in this level of performance are idiots. There's always the possibility they know more about what they're doing than you do.

    doc

  15. Re:Drop a millisecond by amorsen · · Score: 2, Funny

    You can't drop below 1ms because of the latency implied by the network equipments (just to go through their hardware takes a few milliseconds - not to mention stateful equipment such as firewalls or load balancers, etc.)

    Here's a nickel, kid, go buy yourself a real firewall.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?