2010-11-29 02:33:05 +01:00
|
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
libtorrent manual
|
|
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
|
2014-10-14 04:06:20 +02:00
|
|
|
:Author: Arvid Norberg, arvid@libtorrent.org
|
2016-07-20 20:29:24 +02:00
|
|
|
:Version: 1.2.0
|
2010-11-29 02:33:05 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. contents:: Table of contents
|
|
|
|
:depth: 2
|
|
|
|
:backlinks: none
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uTP
|
|
|
|
===
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uTP (uTorrent transport protocol) is a transport protocol which uses one-way
|
|
|
|
delay measurements for its congestion controller. This article is about uTP
|
|
|
|
in general and specifically about libtorrent's implementation of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rationale
|
|
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most common problems users are experiencing using bittorrent is
|
|
|
|
that their internet "stops working". This can be caused by a number of things,
|
|
|
|
for example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. a home router that crashes or slows down when its NAT pin-hole
|
|
|
|
table overflows, triggered by DHT or simply many TCP connections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. a home router that crashes or slows down by UDP traffic (caused by
|
|
|
|
the DHT)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. a home DSL or cable modem having its send buffer filled up by outgoing
|
|
|
|
data, and the buffer fits seconds worth of bytes. This adds seconds
|
|
|
|
of delay on interactive traffic. For a web site that needs 10 round
|
|
|
|
trips to load this may mean 10s of seconds of delay to load compared
|
|
|
|
to without bittorrent. Skype or other delay sensitive applications
|
|
|
|
would be affected even more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This document will cover (3).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typically this is solved by asking the user to enter a number of bytes
|
|
|
|
that the client is allowed to send per second (i.e. setting an upload
|
|
|
|
rate limit). The common recommendation is to set this limit to 80% of the
|
|
|
|
uplink's capacity. This is to leave some headroom for things like TCP
|
|
|
|
ACKs as well as the user's interactive use of the connection such as
|
|
|
|
browsing the web or checking email.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two major drawbacks with this technique:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The user needs to actively make this setting (very few protocols
|
|
|
|
require the user to provide this sort of information). This also
|
|
|
|
means the user needs to figure out what its up-link capacity is.
|
|
|
|
This is unfortunately a number that many ISPs are not advertizing
|
|
|
|
(because it's often much lower than the download capacity) which
|
|
|
|
might make it hard to find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. The 20% headroom is wasted most of the time. Whenever the user
|
|
|
|
is not using the internet connection for anything, those extra 20%
|
|
|
|
could have been used by bittorrent to upload, but they're already
|
|
|
|
allocated for interactive traffic. On top of that, 20% of the up-link
|
|
|
|
is often not enough to give a good and responsive browsing experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ideal bandwidth allocation would be to use 100% for bittorrent when
|
|
|
|
there is no interactive cross traffic, and 100% for interactive traffic
|
|
|
|
whenever there is any. This would not waste any bandwidth while the user
|
|
|
|
is idling, and it would make for a much better experience when the user
|
|
|
|
is using the internet connection for other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what uTP does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCP
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason TCP will fill the send buffer, and cause the delay on all traffic,
|
|
|
|
is because its congestion control is *only* based on packet loss (and timeout).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the modem is buffering, packets won't get dropped until the entire queue
|
|
|
|
is full, and no more packets will fit. The packets will be dropped, TCP will
|
|
|
|
detect this within an RTT or so. When TCP notices a packet loss, it will slow
|
|
|
|
down its send rate and the queue will start to drain again. However, TCP will
|
|
|
|
immediately start to ramp up its send rate again until the buffer is full and
|
|
|
|
it detects packet loss again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCP is designed to fully utilize the link capacity, without causing congestion.
|
|
|
|
Whenever it sense congestion (through packet loss) it backs off. TCP is not
|
|
|
|
designed to keep delays low. When you get the first packet loss (assuming the
|
|
|
|
kind of queue described above, tail-queue) it is already too late. Your queue
|
|
|
|
is full and you have the maximum amount of delay your modem can provide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCP controls its send rate by limiting the number of bytes in-flight at any
|
|
|
|
given time. This limit is called congestion window (*cwnd* for short). During
|
|
|
|
steady state, the congestion window is constantly increasing linearly. Each
|
|
|
|
packet that is successfully transferred will increase cwnd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cwnd
|
|
|
|
send_rate = ----
|
|
|
|
RTT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Send rate is proportional to cwnd divided by RTT. A smaller cwnd will cause
|
|
|
|
the send rate to be lower and a larger cwnd will cause the send rate to be
|
|
|
|
higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using a congestion window instead of controlling the rate directly is simple
|
|
|
|
because it also introduces an upper bound for memory usage for packets that
|
|
|
|
haven't been ACKed yet and needs to be kept around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The behavior of TCP, where it bumps up against the ceiling, backs off and then
|
|
|
|
starts increasing again until it hits the ceiling again, forms a saw tooth shape.
|
|
|
|
If the modem wouldn't have any send buffer at all, a single TCP stream would
|
|
|
|
not be able to fully utilize the link because of this behavior, since it would
|
|
|
|
only fully utilize the link right before the packet loss and the back-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEDBAT congestion controller
|
|
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The congestion controller in uTP is called LEDBAT_, which also is an IETF working
|
|
|
|
group attempting to standardize it. The congestion controller, on top of reacting
|
|
|
|
to packet loss the same way TCP does, also reacts to changes in delays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For any uTP (or LEDBAT_) implementation, there is a target delay. This is the
|
|
|
|
amount of delay that is acceptable, and is in fact targeted for the connection.
|
|
|
|
The target delay is defined to 25 ms in LEDBAT_, uTorrent uses 100 ms and
|
|
|
|
libtorrent uses 75 ms. Whenever a delay measurement is lower than the target,
|
|
|
|
cwnd is increased proportional to (target_delay - delay). Whenever the measurement
|
|
|
|
is higher than the target, cwnd is decreased proportional to (delay - target_delay).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It can simply be expressed as::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cwnd += gain * (target_delay - delay)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. image:: cwnd_thumb.png
|
|
|
|
:target: cwnd.png
|
|
|
|
:align: right
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly to TCP, this is scaled so that the increase is evened out over one RTT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The linear controller will adjust the cwnd more for delays that are far off the
|
|
|
|
target, and less for delays that are close to the target. This makes it converge
|
|
|
|
at the target delay. Although, due to noise there is almost always some amount of
|
|
|
|
oscillation. This oscillation is typically smaller than the saw tooth TCP forms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The figure to the right shows how (TCP) cross traffic causese uTP to essentially
|
|
|
|
entirely stop sending anything. Its delay measurements are mostly well above the target
|
|
|
|
during this time. The cross traffic is only a single TCP stream in this test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As soon as the cross traffic ceases, uTP will pick up its original send rate within
|
|
|
|
a second.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since uTP constantly measures the delay, with every single packet, the reaction time
|
|
|
|
to cross traffic causing delays is a single RTT (typically a fraction of a second).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
one way delays
|
|
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uTP measures the delay imposed on packets being sent to the other end
|
|
|
|
of the connection. This measurement only includes buffering delay along
|
|
|
|
the link, not propagation delay (the speed of light times distance) nor
|
|
|
|
the routing delay (the time routers spend figuring out where to forward
|
|
|
|
the packet). It does this by always comparing all measurements to a
|
|
|
|
baseline measurement, to cancel out any fixed delay. By focusing on the
|
|
|
|
variable delay along a link, it will specifically detect points where
|
|
|
|
there might be congestion, since those points will have buffers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. image:: delays_thumb.png
|
|
|
|
:target: delays.png
|
|
|
|
:align: right
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delay on the return link is explicitly not included in the delay measurement.
|
|
|
|
This is because in a peer-to-peer application, the other end is likely to also
|
|
|
|
be connected via a modem, with the same send buffer restrictions as we assume
|
|
|
|
for the sending side. The other end having its send queue full is not an indication
|
|
|
|
of congestion on the path going the other way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to measure one way delays for packets, we cannot rely on clocks being
|
|
|
|
synchronized, especially not at the microsecond level. Instead, the actual time
|
|
|
|
it takes for a packet to arrive at the destination is not measured, only the changes
|
|
|
|
in the transit time is measured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each packet that is sent includes a time stamp of the current time, in microseconds,
|
|
|
|
of the sending machine. The receiving machine calculates the difference between its
|
|
|
|
own timestamp and the one in the packet and sends this back in the ACK. This difference,
|
|
|
|
since it is in microseconds, will essentially be a random 32 bit number. However,
|
|
|
|
the difference will stay somewhat similar over time. Any changes in this difference
|
|
|
|
indicates that packets are either going through faster or slower.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to measure the one-way buffering delay, a base delay is established. The
|
|
|
|
base delay is the lowest ever seen value of the time stamp difference. Each delay
|
|
|
|
sample we receive back, is compared against the base delay and the delay is the
|
|
|
|
difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the delay that's fed into the congestion controller.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A histogram of typical delay measurements is shown to the right. This is from
|
|
|
|
a transfer between a cable modem connection and a DSL connection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The details of the delay measurements are slightly more complicated since the
|
|
|
|
values needs to be able to wrap (cross the 2^32 boundry and start over at 0).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Path MTU discovery
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MTU is short for *Maximum Transfer Unit* and describes the largest packet size that
|
|
|
|
can be sent over a link. Any datagrams which size exceeds this limit will either
|
|
|
|
be *fragmented* or dropped. A fragmented datagram means that the payload is split up
|
|
|
|
in multiple packets, each with its own individual packet header.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several reasons to avoid sending datagrams that get fragmented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. A fragmented datagram is more likely to be lost. If any fragment is lost,
|
|
|
|
the whole datagram is dropped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Bandwidth is likely to be wasted. If the datagram size is not divisible
|
|
|
|
by the MTU the last packet will not contain as much payload as it could, and the
|
|
|
|
payload over protocol header ratio decreases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. It's expensive to fragment datagrams. Few routers are optimized to handle large
|
|
|
|
numbers of fragmented packets. Datagrams that have to fragment are likely to
|
|
|
|
be delayed significantly, and contribute to more CPU being used on routers.
|
|
|
|
Typically fragmentation (and other advanced IP features) are implemented in
|
|
|
|
software (slow) and not hardware (fast).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The path MTU is the lowest MTU of any link along a path from two endpoints on the
|
|
|
|
internet. The MTU bottleneck isn't necessarily at one of the endpoints, but can
|
|
|
|
be anywhere in between.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most common MTU is 1500 bytes, which is the largest packet size for ethernet
|
|
|
|
networks. Many home DSL connections, however, tunnel IP through PPPoE (Point to
|
|
|
|
Point Protocol over Ethernet. Yes, that is the old dial-up modem protocol). This
|
|
|
|
protocol uses up 8 bytes per packet for its own header.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the user happens to be on an internet connection over a VPN, it will add another
|
|
|
|
layer, with its own packet headers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In short; if you would pick the largest possible packet size on an ethernet network,
|
|
|
|
1472, and stick with it, you would be quite likely to generate fragments for a lot
|
|
|
|
of connections. The fragments that will be created will be very small and especially
|
|
|
|
inflate the overhead waste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The other approach of picking a very conservative packet size, that would be very
|
|
|
|
unlikely to get fragmented has the following drawbacks:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. People on good, normal, networks will be penalized with a small packet size.
|
|
|
|
Both in terms of router load but also bandwidth waste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Software routers are typically not limited by the number of bytes they can route,
|
|
|
|
but the number of packets. Small packets means more of them, and more load on
|
|
|
|
software routers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The solution to the problem of finding the optimal packet size, is to dynamically
|
|
|
|
adjust the packet size and search for the largest size that can make it through
|
|
|
|
without being fragmented along the path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To help do this, you can set the DF bit (Don't Fragment) in your Datagrams. This
|
|
|
|
asks routers that otherwise would fragment packets to instead drop them, and send
|
|
|
|
back an ICMP message reporting the MTU of the link the packet couldn't fit. With
|
|
|
|
this message, it's very simple to discover the path MTU. You simply mark your packets
|
|
|
|
not to be fragmented, and change your packet size whenever you receive the ICMP
|
|
|
|
packet-too-big message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. There are a significant number of firewalls
|
|
|
|
in the wild blocking all ICMP messages. This means we can't rely on them, we also have
|
|
|
|
to guess that a packet was dropped because of its size. This is done by only marking
|
|
|
|
certain packets with DF, and if all other packets go through, except for the MTU probes,
|
|
|
|
we know that we need to lower our packet sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we set up bounds for the path MTU (say the minimum internet MTU, 576 and ethernet's 1500),
|
|
|
|
we can do a binary search for the MTU. This would let us find it in just a few round-trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On top of this, libtorrent has an optimization where it figures out which interface a
|
|
|
|
uTP connection will be sent over, and initialize the MTU ceiling to that interface's MTU.
|
|
|
|
This means that a VPN tunnel would advertize its MTU as lower, and the uTP connection would
|
|
|
|
immediately know to send smaller packets, no search required. It also has the side-effect
|
|
|
|
of being able to use much larger packet sizes for non-ethernet interfaces or ethernet links
|
|
|
|
with jumbo frames.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clock drift
|
|
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. image:: our_delay_base_thumb.png
|
|
|
|
:target: our_delay_base.png
|
|
|
|
:align: right
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clock drift is clocks progressing at different rates. It's different from clock
|
|
|
|
skew which means clocks set to different values (but which may progress at the same
|
|
|
|
rate).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any clock drift between the two machines involved in a uTP transfer will result
|
|
|
|
in systematically inflated or deflated delay measurements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This can be solved by letting the base delay be the lowest seen sample in the last
|
|
|
|
*n* minutes. This is a trade-off between seeing a single packet go straight through
|
|
|
|
the queue, with no delay, and the amount of clock drift one can assume on normal computers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It turns out that it's fairly safe to assume that one of your packets will in fact go
|
|
|
|
straight through without any significant delay, once every 20 minutes or so. However,
|
|
|
|
the clock drift between normal computers can be as much as 17 ms in 10 minutes. 17 ms
|
|
|
|
is quite significant, especially if your target delay is 25 ms (as in the LEDBAT_ spec).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clocks progresses at different rates depending on temperature. This means computers
|
|
|
|
running hot are likely to have a clock drift compared to computers running cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, by updating the delay base periodically based on the lowest seen sample, you'll either
|
|
|
|
end up changing it upwards (artificaially making the delay samples appear small) without
|
|
|
|
the congestion or delay actually having changed, or you'll end up with a significant clock
|
|
|
|
drift and have artificially low samples because of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The solution to this problem is based on the fact that the clock drift is only a problem
|
|
|
|
for one of the sides of the connection. Only when your delay measurements keep increasing
|
|
|
|
is it a problem. If your delay measurements keep decreasing, the samples will simply push
|
|
|
|
down the delay base along with it. With this in mind, we can simply keep track of the
|
|
|
|
other end's delay measurements as well, applying the same logic to it. Whenever the
|
|
|
|
other end's base delay is adjusted downwards, we adjust our base delay upwards by the same
|
|
|
|
amount.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This will accurately keep the base delay updated with the clock drift and improve
|
|
|
|
the delay measurements. The figure on the right shows the absolute timestamp differences
|
|
|
|
along with the base delay. The slope of the measurements is caused by clock drift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more information on the clock drift compensation, see the slides from BitTorrent's
|
|
|
|
presentation at IPTPS10_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _IPTPS10: http://www.usenix.org/event/iptps10/tech/slides/cohen.pdf
|
|
|
|
.. _LEDBAT: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ledbat-congestion/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
features
|
|
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
libtorrent's uTP implementation includes the following features:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Path MTU discovery, including jumbo frames and detecting restricted
|
|
|
|
MTU tunnels. Binary search packet sizes to find the largest non-fragmented.
|
|
|
|
* Selective ACK. The ability to acknowledge individual packets in the
|
|
|
|
event of packet loss
|
|
|
|
* Fast resend. The first time a packet is lost, it's resent immediately.
|
|
|
|
Triggered by duplicate ACKs.
|
|
|
|
* Nagle's algorithm. Minimize protocol overhead by attempting to lump
|
|
|
|
full packets of payload together before sending a packet.
|
|
|
|
* Delayed ACKs to minimize protocol overhead.
|
|
|
|
* Microsecond resolution timestamps.
|
|
|
|
* Advertised receive window, to support download rate limiting.
|
|
|
|
* Correct handling of wrapping sequence numbers.
|
|
|
|
* Easy configuration of target-delay, gain-factor, timeouts, delayed-ack
|
|
|
|
and socket buffers.
|
|
|
|
|