Towards an Open Data Cente with an Interoperable Network (ODIN) Volume 5: WAN and Ultra Low Latency Applications

Towards an Open Data Center with an Interoperable Network (ODIN)
Volume 5: WAN and Ultra Low Latency Applications
®
May 2012

Towards an Open Data Center
with an Interoperable Network
(ODIN)

Volume 5: WAN and Ultra Low
Latency Applications

Casimer DeCusatis, Ph.D.
Distinguished Engineer
IBM System Networking, CTO Strategic Alliances
IBM Systems and Technology Group

May 2012

Page 2

Executive Overview
Wide area networks (WANs) are used to interconnect multiple data centers, and are an important
part of the overall network design strategy. While this document will not discuss backup/recovery
requirements planning, it does present an overview of preferred industry standards for operating
extended distance private optical networks such as wavelength division multiplexing (WDM).
Techniques to minimize the latency for WAN connections are also presented. Other types of
extended distance connections may be provided through basic IP connections, assuming they
meet the desired business objectives.

5.1 Multi-Site Connectivity
It is common for the volume of WAN traffic to increase at an annual rate of thirty percent of more,
and this traffic volume is expected to increase even further with the advent of larger cloud data
centers and multi-site enterprise disaster recovery solutions. In the past data centers didn't
extend broadcast domains over long distance. Filtering was required for traffic intended to go
outside a given broadcast domain. In a more modern environment, there may be tens to
hundreds or even thousands of virtual servers on a single domain; if this is extended over
distance, it would require a huge amount of WAN bandwidth (otherwise, it might take a very long
time to move a VM and its associated data). Higher data rates on the WAN and service provider
network would also drive disproportionately higher data rates on switches within the data center
and at the WAN edge, which does not lend itself to cost effective scaling. This has motivated the
development of new WAN technologies as the data center network has evolved.

Multi-site connectivity can be implemented in a number of ways. Public Internet connections with
IPSec secure tunneling are readily available and low cost, but may not provide the quality of
service and performance guarantees required for larger enterprises. There are approaches that
can leverage the IP network, such as Fibre Channel over IP (FC/IP), which is an IETF industry
standard protocol used to encapsulate Fibre Channel frames and forward them across an IP
network. FC/IP can form part of an extended distance solution for data mobility within storage
systems. Managed data connectivity services provide additional layers of security and
performance running over a public or private Internet connection. Leased line data services are
available from service providers which include options for private management of point-to-point
networks (known as private circuits or Layer 2 VPN) or full mesh connectivity (Layer 3 VPN). In
areas where leased optical fiber (or “dark fiber”) is available, it is often cost effective for larger
enterprises to use dedicated optical wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) solutions. The cost
of WDM is falling rapidly, and it is also available as an integrated option on some large Ethernet
switches. WDM connectivity may also be used either in place of, or in conjunction with, storage
data mobility solutions over extended distances (up to several hundred kilometers or more).

Historically, there have been four distinct generations of enterprise WAN technologies. Starting in
the mid to late 1980s, it became common for enterprise IT organizations to deploy integrated
TDM-based WANs to carry both voice and data traffic. In the early 1990s, IT organizations began
to deploy Frame Relay-based WANs. In the mid to late 1990s, some IT organizations replaced
their Frame Relay-based WANs with WANs based on ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode)
technology. Since around the year 2000, most IT organizations have replaced their legacy WANs
with MPLS based technology combined with some Internet based services. More recently, MPLS
has also been used within a single data center to deliver the same benefits as when it is used on
the WAN. Since the price/performance of MPLS services tends to lag behind the expected growth
of WAN traffic, new technologies such as virtual private LAN services (VPLS) are being deployed.
VPLS represents the combination of Ethernet and MPLS whereby an Ethernet frame is
encapsulated inside of MPLS. As is typically the case with WAN services, the viability of using
VPLS vs. alternative services will hinge largely on the relative cost of the services, which will vary
by service provider and geographic location. When MPLS is deployed between data centers, it

Page 3

functions as an overlay on top of an existing leased line infrastructure; this can make it difficult to
create a cost effective infrastructure for smaller and medium sized enterprises.

There are several types of MPLS/VPLS services, depending on whether the application is within
a single data center or between data centers, and whether traffic is being managed within a
single VPN or between VPNs. Core switches that support MPLS/VPLS standards enable
collapsing the router and core tiers of the data center network into a flatter network with fewer
layers. MPLS/VPLS enable VM migration between data centers by keeping VMs in a single layer-
2 domain which spans multiple data centers.

One of the challenges associated with modern WANs in general and hybrid cloud computing in
particular is that hybrid clouds depend heavily on VM migration among geographically dispersed
servers. This is necessary in order to ensure high availability and dynamic response to changes
in user demand for services. The desire to have transparency relative to the location of the
applications has a number of networking implications including the following:

 VLAN Extension - The VLANs within which VMs are migrated must be extended over the
WAN between the private and public data centers.
 Secure Tunneling - These tunnels must provide an adequate level of security for all the
required data flows over the Internet.
 Universal Access to Central Services - All application services, such as load balancing,
should be available and function transparently in this environment
 Disaster recovery solutions - As data centers become larger, there is an increasing need for
multi-site managed backup, recovery, and continuous availability solutions. The nature of
these solutions depends on each user’s tolerance for the period of time there data can be
unavailable during an outage (recovery time objective), the amount of data which can afford
to be lost (recovery point objective), and other factors. Technical problems remain with
supporting multi-hop across FCoE switches at extended distance, so Fibre Channel will
continue to be used for long distance storage backups. Many enterprise applications will
continue to use ultra-high availability solutions for their mission critical data (such as GDPS in
a mainframe environment).
Since WAN costs can be relatively high compared with inter-site networking, small and medium
sized clients often cannot simply add more WAN capacity to their networks on demand. There is
a tradeoff between cost containment and increased network traffic demands. Various WAN
optimization and acceleration techniques can be used to get increasing performance from the
existing infrastructure. WAN optimization should enable locating key servers in a centralized
location by providing application performance similar to that achieved on a LAN. Application
accelerators for TCP/IP and similar protocols also play an important role in performance
optimization. If real time applications are deployed over an accelerated WAN, then quality of
service and bandwidth optimization are desired features. There are vendor proprietary
alternatives to MPLS/VPLS; there are a number of concerns with these alternatives, including
requirements to configure them on core routers, security issues (particularly for alternatives which
transport traffic over an untrusted IP connection rather than an MPLS/VPLS tunnel), and
guaranteeing lossless performance and reserved bandwidth. Further, MPLS/VPLS is a very
mature protocol, with well-developed traffic engineering facilities, and since MPLS/VPLS is a
shared network model, in principle it offers lower cost to the end users.

An MPLS backbone for site to site connectivity is compatible with a dual homed Ethernet
architecture in the data center, including core switch connectivity with MLAG, TRILL, and other
features described previously. Routers and firewalls should be deployed in an active/active
configuration and use separate WAN links, cross-connected to provide high availability. Load
balancing across redundant connections is optional depending on traffic volumes and availability
requirements of the application. Other emerging protocols including IPv6 and OpenFlow are
beginning to make inroads into the WAN, as well.

Page 4

5.2 Ultra Low Latency Applications
One application which has recently received considerable interest is the design of data centers to
accommodate extremely low latency applications. In some cases, the network will not be the
limiting factor for low latency (for example, storage controllers may have latency many times
larger than the network); in other cases, the network latency may be a significant factor. These
applications may include areas such as telemedicine and other remote control systems; one of
the largest applications involves real time electronic financial transactions. Sometimes known as
high frequency trading (HFT), this approach is currently responsible for over 1/3 of all stock
transactions and is expected to grow significantly in coming years. The overriding design
consideration for HFT applications is lowering latency, which refers to the total end to end time
delay within the data center network due to a combination of time of flight and processing delays
within the network equipment. Financial applications are especially sensitive to latency; a
difference of microseconds or less can mean millions of dollars in lost revenue. There are several
published examples from retail and online merchants in which latency reduces the number of
search queries and retail transactions; some of these effects can persist even after a brief
increase in latency has been restored to nominal levels. High latency translates directly to lower
performance because applications stall or idle when they are waiting for a response over the
network. Further, new types of network traffic are particularly sensitive to latency, including virtual
machine migration and storage traffic. In the case of HFT, both the magnitude and consistency of
the latency (jitter, or variation in packet arrival times) are important. Low latency is critical to high
performance, especially for modern applications where the ratio of communication to computation
is relatively high compared to legacy applications. The Securities Technology Analysis Center
(STAC™) is a vendor neutral benchmarking organization comprised of leading financial market
firms, who write and maintain a library of test suites which represent customer-defined, simulated
market trading environments. Testing with this benchmark is observed and audited by STAC™
and made available to their members and subscribing companies.

Today there is a tradeoff between virtualization and latency, so that applications with very low
latency requirements do not virtualize their applications. In the long term, this may change as
increased speeds of multi-core processors and better software reduce the latency overhead
associated with virtualization.

The internal design of data center switches can influence latency. The number of switch chip
hops within a switch should be minimized; a single-chip switch offers not only lower latency than
a multi-chip switch, but also provides more consistent, deterministic latency to every switch port.
Single-chip solutions also offer higher reliability and lower power dissipation.

Most of the latency associated with data center networks is incurred by the upper layer protocols
(TCP windowing, flow control, packet retransmission and routing, store and forward, etc.). For this
reason, techniques such as iWarp and RoCE can be used to minimize the network stack latency.
However, a significant amount of latency is also incurred from wide area network transport. There
are three major sources of latency in the wide area network (WAN); fiber latency, WAN
equipment latency, and the contributions of equipment in the fiber path (signal regenerators,
amplifiers, and dispersion compensators). The fiber latency is fixed at 5 microseconds per km,
and will be dominated by the WAN distance rather than distances within the data center. This is
particularly difficult to adjust, since fiber paths are often indirect and much longer than the
geographic distance between two locations. For connections between major cities, existing fiber
routes are not particularly direct, and new, more direct fiber builds are often not economically
justified since it is much easier to reinforce existing fiber routes.

Page 5

More Latency
7
Application
6 Presentation Data
Session
5

TCP windowing
Flow control Segments
4 Packet re-send

Address lookup
Packet forwarding Packets
3 Routing

Store-Forward
Line coding Frames
2 Switching

Framing
FEC
1 Bits

Less Latency
Figure 5.1 – Sources of latency in the network

There are also potentially significant sources of latency in the long distance optical transport
equipment. For example, optical transponders are used to convert an incoming data signal to a
specific modulated optical wavelength for multiplexing purposes, or to aggregate lower data rates
using time division multiplexing. The electronic time multiplexing, performance monitoring,
protocol conversion, clock recovery, and forward error correction (FEC) algorithms used in this
application are all sources of added latency. While this is usually negligible for typical
applications, it can be significant for latency sensitive applications. Higher data rates (over 10
Gbit/second) require FEC in order to detect and correct bit errors, but this can add tens to
hundreds of microseconds of latency. Similarly, the convergence of optical and electrical signals
in a sub-rate multiplexing architecture can be achieved using the industry standard IETF G.709,
known as Optical Transport Network (OTN). This approach encapsulates user data in a digital
wrapper to decouple the server links from the long haul links, and is commonly used to
encapsulate lower data rate traffic into a 40-100 Gbit/second backbone. However, OTN
encapsulation also introduces tens of microseconds of additional latency, and should be disabled
for ultra-low latency networks. We also note that many vendor proprietary inter-switch links (ISLs)
on Fibre Channel switches are not fully compatible with OTN, and thus OTN should be disabled if
these interconnects are used for long distance transmission.

Page 6

For distances exceeding 80-100 km, optical amplification and dispersion compensation are
required. Optical fiber amplifiers consist of specially doped sections of fiber which may be tens to
hundreds of meters or more in length. Optical signals passing through this fiber are amplified
without requiring electronic to optical signal conversion, so the overall latency from an optical
amplifier is lower than a corresponding electronic amplifier; there is a tradeoff in signal integrity
since the optical amplifier cannot retime a signal like the electronic amplifier. Although the latency
introduced by a single optical amplifier is typically very low (less than a few microseconds), for
fiber links with poor noise figures, many amplifiers placed close together may be required, thus
increasing the aggregate latency. The type of optical amplifier will also make a difference. Erbium
doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs) require longer fiber lengths within the amplifier, and thus add
more latency compared with Raman amplifiers.

Extended distance links also require dispersion compensation, to overcome the fixed levels of
chromatic dispersion associated with long distances of installed fiber. The type of dispersion
compensator can make a significant difference in latency. One approach involves inserting spools
of specially treated dispersion compensating fiber into the link, which have a negative dispersion
shift and cancel out the positive dispersion associated with the rest of the fiber. A typical 100 km
link can be compensated with about 14 km of dispersion shifted fiber, which adds about 70
microseconds to the link latency [6]. If the dispersion compensating fiber is not optimally placed,
additional optical amplifier stages may be required, which further increases the link latency.
Another approach is the use of dispersion compensation gratings, which are short lengths of
optical fiber fabricated with a chirped fiber Bragg grating in their core. This diffraction grating is
able to induce high levels of negative dispersion proportional to the optical wavelength; several
possible designs have been proposed [7]. A 100 km length of fiber can be compensated using
only about 20 meters of fiber Bragg grating, with an additional latency of less than 0.15
microseconds. Although dispersion compensating grating are currently more expensive, the cost
difference may be justified in cases where ultra-low latency is required. Additional latency tuning
can also be achieved through tuning of the application environment, operating system, and
hardware environment of the servers attached to the network, although these details are beyond
the scope of this architecture.

In summary, for ultra-low latency applications such as high frequency financial trading, the data
center network can introduce significant amounts of latency. Within a data center, the entire
network stack must be considered, including the server adapter, top of rack switches, and core
switches; end to end solutions which perform well on independently audited latency benchmark
tests are recommended. The number of switch chips within a network switch should be
minimized. For links between data centers, latency can be optimized by selecting the shortest
possible physical fiber path, disabling FEC and OTN, using Raman amps instead of EDFAs, and
using dispersion compensating Bragg gratings instead of dispersion compensating fiber. In the
future, as transaction rates increase, we expect further reductions in latency will be possible
through faster processors and network interface controllers, accelerated middleware appliances,
and ultra-low latency switches, combined with a certain amount of tuning and design optimization.

Summary
The ability to interconnect multiple data centers over extended distance is an important part of an
overall data center strategy, particularly when considering business continuity and
backup/recovery applications. Mature standards such as MPLS/VPLS provide a practical way to
enable this connectivity. When designing for ultra-low latency applications, the incremental
latency of the WAN can be minimized through techniques such as disabling OTN and FEC, using
Fiber Bragg grating based dispersion compensation, or using Raman amplifiers instead of
EDFAs.

Page 7

Technical References
A Bach, “High speed networking and the race to zero”, Hot Interconnects (HOTI) conference, 11
Madison Ave, New York, NY, August 25-27, 2009; retrieved from
http://www.hoti.org/hoti17/program/

“Best practices for tuning system latency”, IBM White Paper, March 2011, retrieved from:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxinfo/v3r0m0/topic/performance/rtbestp/rtbestp_pdf.pdf

Discussion on why MPLS is more secure than OTV, retrieved from:
http://www.bandwidth.com/wiki/article/How_secure_is_MPLS

“InfiniBand® Trade Association Announces RDMA over Converged Ethernet (RoCE); New
Specification to Bolster Low Latency Ethernet Adoption in the Enterprise Data Center,” retrieved
from: http://www.infinibandta.org/content/pages.php?pg=press_room_item&rec_id=663

IETF, Request for Comments (RFC) Pages, http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html

Page 8

For More Information
IBM System Networking http://ibm.com/networking/
IBM PureSystems http://ibm.com/puresystems/
IBM System x Servers http://ibm.com/systems/x
IBM Power Systems http://ibm.com/systems/power
IBM BladeCenter Server and options http://ibm.com/systems/bladecenter
IBM System x and BladeCenter Power Configurator http://ibm.com/systems/bladecenter/resources/powerconfig.html
IBM Standalone Solutions Configuration Tool http://ibm.com/systems/x/hardware/configtools.html
IBM Configuration and Options Guide http://ibm.com/systems/x/hardware/configtools.html
Technical Support http://ibm.com/server/support
Other Technical Support Resources http://ibm.com/systems/support

Legal Information This publication may contain links to third party sites that are
not under the control of or maintained by IBM. Access to any
IBM Systems and Technology Group such third party site is at the user's own risk and IBM is not
Route 100 responsible for the accuracy or reliability of any information,
data, opinions, advice or statements made on these sites. IBM
Somers, NY 10589.
provides these links merely as a convenience and the
Produced in the USA inclusion of such links does not imply an endorsement.
May 2012
Information in this presentation concerning non-IBM products
All rights reserved.
was obtained from the suppliers of these products, published
IBM, the IBM logo, ibm.com, BladeCenter, and VMready are announcement material or other publicly available sources.
trademarks of International Business Machines Corp., IBM has not tested these products and cannot confirm the
registered in many jurisdictions worldwide. Other product and accuracy of performance, compatibility or any other claims
service names might be trademarks of IBM or other related to non-IBM products. Questions on the capabilities of
companies. A current list of IBM trademarks is available on non-IBM products should be addressed to the suppliers of
the web at ibm.com/legal/copytrade.shtml those products.
InfiniBand is a trademark of InfiniBand Trade Association. MB, GB and TB = 1,000,000, 1,000,000,000 and
1,000,000,000,000 bytes, respectively, when referring to
Intel, the Intel logo, Celeron, Itanium, Pentium, and Xeon are
storage capacity. Accessible capacity is less; up to 3GB is
trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its
used in service partition. Actual storage capacity will vary
subsidiaries in the United States and other countries. based upon many factors and may be less than stated.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Performance is in Internal Throughput Rate (ITR) ratio based
Lotus, Domino, Notes, and Symphony are trademarks or on measurements and projections using standard IBM
registered trademarks of Lotus Development Corporation benchmarks in a controlled environment. The actual
and/or IBM Corporation. throughput that any user will experience will depend on
considerations such as the amount of multiprogramming in the
Microsoft, Windows, Windows Server, the Windows logo, user’s job stream, the I/O configuration, the storage
Hyper-V, and SQL Server are trademarks or registered configuration and the workload processed. Therefore, no
trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. assurance can be given that an individual user will achieve
TPC Benchmark is a trademark of the Transaction Processing throughput improvements equivalent to the performance ratios
Performance Council. stated here.
UNIX is a registered trademark in the U.S. and/or other Maximum internal hard disk and memory capacities may
countries licensed exclusively through The Open Group. require the replacement of any standard hard drives and/or
memory and the population of all hard disk bays and memory
Other company, product and service names may be slots with the largest currently supported drives available.
trademarks or service marks of others. When referring to variable speed CD-ROMs, CD-Rs, CD-RWs
IBM reserves the right to change specifications or other and DVDs, actual playback speed will vary and is often less
product information without notice. References in this than the maximum possible.
publication to IBM products or services do not imply that IBM
intends to make them available in all countries in which IBM
operates. IBM PROVIDES THIS PUBLICATION “AS IS”
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Some jurisdictions do not allow disclaimer of
express or implied warranties in certain transactions;
therefore, this statement may not apply to you.
QCW03023USEN-00

Towards an Open Data Cente with an Interoperable Network (ODIN) Volume 5: WAN and Ultra Low Latency Applications

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Towards an Open Data Cente with an Interoperable Network (ODIN) Volume 5: WAN and Ultra Low Latency Applications

More from IBM India Smarter Computing

Recently uploaded

Towards an Open Data Cente with an Interoperable Network (ODIN) Volume 5: WAN and Ultra Low Latency Applications