MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heavy Hitter Flow Detection using P4-based Programmable Data Plane Switches

2024· article· en· W4408092656 on OpenAlexaff
Ks Adarsha, Krishna M. Sivalingam, Gauravdeep Shami, Marc Lyonnais, Rodney Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsCiena (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFlow (mathematics)Forwarding planeComputer networkPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In data networks carrying large numbers of flows, Heavy Hitters (HHs) or Elephant flows are the flows exceeding pre-determined thresholds (e.g. wrt. number of packets or bytes) in a given time window. Such HH flows need to be handled differently in order to minimize their impact on other smaller flows. In recent years, HH detection techniques were shown to be effectively implementable in programmable data plane switches. In recent work, it was shown that the inter-packet gap can be used to identify heavy hitters. In order to conserve memory, such schemes use a limited-size hash table for storing flow state information and using this for the detection. However, when hash collisions occur, it is possible that a valid HH flow in the table can be replaced by a non-HH flow resulting in missing detection of HH flows. To address this problem, this paper incorporates a flow’s medium term Packet Count feature. In order to limit the packet count field size in the hash table, counting is done only till Hash Collision occurs so as to the reduce the range of values to be stored and thus, the required number of bits. The proposed scheme has been implemented in the P4 language and run on Intel Tofino hardware. Performance evaluation has been done using MAWI-based real-life traffic traces. The results shows that in several scenarios cases, we can significantly reduce the False Negatives for HHs by using the packet count data effectively and efficiently.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207