15
1 Self Similar Traffic

1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

1

Self Similar Traffic

Page 2: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

2

Self Similarity

• The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different scales on a dimension, such as the time dimension.

• It’s a unifying concept underlying fractals, chaos, power laws, and a common attribute in many laws of nature and in phenomena in the world around us.

Page 3: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

3

Cantor

Each left portion in a step is a full replica of the preceding step

Page 4: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

4

Fractals

Page 5: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

5

What is a Fractal?

• Exhibits self-similarity

• Based on recursive algorithms

• Unique dimensionality

• Scale independent

Page 6: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

6

Network Traffic in the Real World• For years,

traffic was assumed tobe based on Poisson.

• It is now known that this traffic has a self similar pattern.

• Characterized by burstiness.

Page 7: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

7

Self Similarity of Ethernet Traffic

• Seminal paper by W. Leland et al published in 1993, examined Ethernet traffic between 1989 and 1992, gathering 4 sets of data, each lasting 20 to 40 hours, with a resolution of 20 microseconds.

• Paper shattered the illusion of Poison distribution being adequate for traffic analysis.

• Proved Ethernet traffic is self similar with a Hurst factor of H = 0.9

• 0 < H <1 ; the higher H, the more self similar the pattern

Page 8: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

8

Page 9: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

9

• Self-similarity manifests itself in several equivalent fashions:– Slowly decaying variance– Long range dependence– Non-degenerate autocorrelations– Hurst effect

Self-similarity: manifestations

Page 10: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

10

Definition of Self-Similarity

• Self-similar processes are the simplest way to model processes with long-range dependence – correlations that persist (do not degenerate) across large time scales

• The autocorrelation function r(k) of a process (statistical measure of the relationship, if any, between a random variable and itself, at different time lags)with long-range dependence is not summable: – r(k) = inf.– r(k) k- as k inf. for 0 < < 1

• Autocorrelation function follows a power law• Slower decay than exponential process

– Power spectrum is hyperbolic rising to inf. at freq. 0– If r(k) < inf. then you have short-range dependence

Page 11: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

11

Self-Similarity contd.

• Consider a zero-mean stationary time series X = (Xt;t = 1,2,3,…), we define the m-aggregated series X(m) = (Xk

(m);k = 1,2,3,…) by summing X over blocks of size m. We say X is H-self-similar if for all positive m, X(m)

has the same distribution as X rescaled by mH.

• If X is H-self-similar, it has the same autocorrelation function r(k) as the series X(m) for all m. This is actually distributional self-similarity.

• Degree of self-similarity is expressed as the speed of decay of series autocorrelation function using the Hurst parameter

– H = 1 - /2

– For SS series with LRD, ½ < H < 1

– Degree of SS and LRD increases as H 1

Page 12: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

12

Graphical Tests for Self-Similarity

• Variance-time plots

– Relies on slowly decaying variance of self-similar series– The variance of X(m) is plotted versus m on log-log plot

– Slope (- greater than –1 is indicative of SS

• R/S plots

– Relies on rescaled range (R/S)statistic growing like a power law with H as a function of number of points n plotted.

– The plot of R/S versus n on log-log has slope which estimates H

• Periodogram plot

– Relies on the slope of the power spectrum of the series as frequency approaches zero

– The periodogram slope is a straight line with slope – 1 close to the origin

Page 13: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

13

Graphical test examples – VT plot

Page 14: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

14

Graphical test example – R/S plot

Page 15: 1 Self Similar Traffic. 2 Self Similarity The idea is that something looks the same when viewed from different degrees of “magnification” or different

15

How Inaccurate Are Older Models?