Using certes to infer client response time at the web server

ABSTRACT

As businesses continue to grow their World Wide Web presence, it is becoming increasingly vital for them to have quantitative measures of the mean client perceived response times of their web services. We present Certes (CliEnt Response Time Estimated by the Server), an online server-based mechanism that allows web servers to estimate mean client perceived response time, as if measured at the client. Certes is based on a model of TCP that quantifies the effect that connection drops have on mean client perceived response time by using three simple server-side measurements: connection drop rate, connection accept rate and connection completion rate. The mechanism does not require modifications to HTTP servers or web pages, does not rely on probing or third party sampling, and does not require client-side modifications or scripting. Certes can be used to estimate response times for any web content, not just HTML. We have implemented Certes and compared its response time estimates with those obtained with detailed client instrumentation. Our results demonstrate that Certes provides accurate server-based estimates of mean client response times in HTTP 1.0/1.1 environments, even with rapidly changing workloads. Certes runs online in constant time with very low overhead. It can be used at websites and server farms to verify compliance with service level objectives.

REFERENCES

• 1: Mark Allman, A web server's view of the transport layer, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.30 n.5, October 2000 [doi>10.1145/505672.505674]
• 2: Almeida, J., Dabu, M., Manikutty, A., and Cao, P. 1998. Providing differentiated levels of service in web content hosting. In Tech. Rep. CS-TR-1998-1364. Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
• 3: Hari Balakrishnan , Hariharan S. Rahul , Srinivasan Seshan, An integrated congestion management architecture for Internet hosts, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.29 n.4, p.175-187, Oct. 1999
• 4: Paul Barford , Mark Crovella, A performance evaluation of hyper text transfer protocols, ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, v.27 n.1, p.188-197, June 1999
• 5: Bhatti, N. and Friedrich, R. 1999. Web server support for tiered services. IEEE Net. 13, 5 (Sept.-Oct.), 64--71.
• 6: Braden, R. 1989. RFC 1122: Requirements for Internet Hosts---Communication layers. IETF, http://www.ietf.org.
• 7: Cardwell, N., Savage, S., and Anderson, T. 2000. Modeling TCP Latency. In IEEE INFOCOMM Conference Proceedings (Tel-Aviv, Israel). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 1742--1751.
• 8: Chen, X. and Mohapatra, P. 1999. Providing differentiated service from an internet server. In 8th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks Conference Proceedings (Boston, Mass.). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 214--217.
• 9: Xiangping Chen , Prasant Mohapatra , Huamin Chen, An admission control scheme for predictable server response time for web accesses, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, p.545-554, May 01-05, 2001, Hong Kong, Hong Kong [doi>10.1145/371920.372156]
• 10: Cohen, E., Krishnamurthy, B., and Rexford, J. 1999. Efficient algorithms for predicting requests to web servers. In IEEE INFOCOM Conference Proceedings (Orlando, Fla.). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 284--293.
• 11: Danzig, P. 2001. Ideas for next generation content delivery. In NOSSDAV 2001 (Port Jefferson, N.Y.). ACM, New York, http://www.nossdav.org/2001/keynote_nossdav2001.ppt.
• 12: Lars Eggert , John Heidemann, Application-level differentiated services for Web servers, World Wide Web, v.2 n.3, p.133-142, 1999 [doi>10.1023/A:1019200806549]
• 13: Exodus. http://www.exodus.com/.
• 14: FreeBSD. http://www.FreeBSD.org/.
• 15: Yun Fu , Amin Vahdat , Ludmila Cherkasova , Wenting Tang, EtE: Passive End-to-End Internet Service Performance Monitoring, Proceedings of the General Track: 2002 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, p.115-130, June 10-15, 2002
• 16: Gene H. Golub , Charles F. Van Loan, Matrix computations (3rd ed.), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1996
• 17: Kanodia, V. and Knightly, E. 2000. Multi-class latency-bounded web services. In IEEE/IFIP IWQoS Conference Proceedings (Pittsburgh, Pa).
• 18: KeyNote. http://www.keynote.com/.
• 19: Li, K. and Jamin, S. 2002. A measurement-based admission-controlled web server. In IEEE INFOCOMM Conference Proceedings IEEE, New York, NY, 651--659.
• 20: Chenyang Lu , Tarek F. Abdelzaher , John A. Stankovic , Sang H. Son, A Feedback Control Approach for Guaranteeing Relative Delays in Web Servers, Proceedings of the Seventh Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS '01), p.51, May 30-June 01, 2001
• 21: Mercury Interactive. http://www-heva.mercuryinteractive.com/.
• 22: Microsoft. http://www.MicroSoft.com/.
• 23: Mockapetris, P. 1987a. RFC 1034: Domain names concepts and facilities. IETF, http://www.ietf.org.
• 24: Mockapetris, P. 1987b. RFC 1035: Domain names implementation and specification. IETF, http://www.ietf.org.
• 25: Erich Nahum , Tsipora Barzilai , Dilip Kandlur, Performance issues in WWW servers, ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, v.27 n.1, p.216-217, June 1999
• 26: NetBSD. http://www.NetBSD.org/.
• 27: NetQoS. http://www.NetQoS.com/.
• 28: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen , James Gettys , Anselm Baird-Smith , Eric Prud'hommeaux , Håkon Wium Lie , Chris Lilley, Network performance effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.27 n.4, p.155-166, Oct. 1997
• 29: David P. Olshefski , Jason Nieh , Dakshi Agrawal, Inferring client response time at the web server, Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems, June 15-19, 2002, Marina Del Rey, California
• 30: OneStat. 2002. Microsoft's windows OS global market share is more than 97% according to OneStat.com. OneStat Press Release.
• 31: Jitendra Padhye , Victor Firoiu , Don Towsley , Jim Kurose, Modeling TCP throughput: a simple model and its empirical validation, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.28 n.4, p.303-314, Oct. 1998
• 32: Jitendra Pahdye , Sally Floyd, On inferring TCP behavior, Proceedings of the 2001 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, p.287-298, August 2001, San Diego, California, United States
• 33: Raju Pandey , J. Fritz Barnes , Ronald Olsson, Supporting quality of service in HTTP servers, Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, p.247-256, June 28-July 02, 1998, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico [doi>10.1145/277697.277742]
• 34: Papoulis, A. and Pillai, S. U. 2001. Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes. McGraw-Hill Series in Electrical Engineering.
• 35: Parekh, S., Gandhi, N., Hellerstein, J., Tilbury, D., Jayram, T., and Bigus, J. 2001. Using control theory to achieve service level objectives in performance management. In IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management Conference Proceedings (Seattle, Wash.). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif. 841--854.
• 36: Postel, J. 1981. RFC 793: Transmission Control Protocol. IETF, http://www.ietf.org.
• 37: William H. Press , Saul A. Teukolsky , William T. Vetterling , Brian P. Flannery, Numerical recipes in C (2nd ed.): the art of scientific computing, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1992
• 38: Rajamony, R. and Elnozahy, M. 2001. Measuring client-perceived response times on the WWW. In 3rd USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS) Conference Proceedings (USITS '01) (San Francisco, Calif.).
• 39: RedHat. http://www.RedHat.com/.
• 40: Luigi Rizzo, Dummynet: a simple approach to the evaluation of network protocols, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.27 n.1, p.31-41, Jan. 1997 [doi>10.1145/251007.251012]
• 41: F. Donelson Smith , Félix Hernández Campos , Kevin Jeffay , David Ott, What TCP/IP protocol headers can tell us about the web, ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, v.29 n.1, p.245-256, June 2001
• 42: Srisuresh, P. and Egevang, K. 2001. RFC 3022: Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT). IETF, http://www.ietf.org.
• 43: Srisuresh, P. and Holdredge, M. 1999. RFC 2663: IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations. IETF, http://www.ietf.org.
• 44: W. Richard Stevens, TCP/IP illustrated (vol. 1): the protocols, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1993
• 45: StreamCheck. http://www.streamcheck.com/.
• 46: Thiemo Voigt , Renu Tewari , Douglas Freimuth , Ashish Mehra, Kernel Mechanisms for Service Differentiation in Overloaded Web Servers, Proceedings of the General Track: 2002 USENIX Annual Technical Conference, p.189-202, June 25-30, 2001
• 47: WebStone. http://www.mindcraft.com/.
• 48: Yajnik, M., Moon, S., Kurose, J., and Towsley, D. 1999. Measurement and modeling of the temporal dependence in packet loss. In IEEE INFOCOM Conference Proceedings (Orlando, Fla.). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, Calif., 345--352.
• 49: Zhang, Y., Paxson, V., and Shenker, S. 2000. The Stationarity of Internet Path Properties: Routing, Loss and Throughput. In Tech. Rep. ACIRI.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.4 OPERATING SYSTEMS
      D.4.8 Performance
          Subjects: Measurements

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.4 OPERATING SYSTEMS
      D.4.8 Performance
          Subjects: Modeling and prediction; Operational analysis

General Terms:
Algorithms, Experimentation, Management, Measurement, Performance

Keywords:
Web server, client perceived response time