This collection includes most of the ASU Theses and Dissertations from 2011 to present. ASU Theses and Dissertations are available in downloadable PDF format; however, a small percentage of items are under embargo. Information about the dissertations/theses includes degree information, committee members, an abstract, supporting data or media.
In addition to the electronic theses found in the ASU Digital Repository, ASU Theses and Dissertations can be found in the ASU Library Catalog.
Dissertations and Theses granted by Arizona State University are archived and made available through a joint effort of the ASU Graduate College and the ASU Libraries. For more information or questions about this collection contact or visit the Digital Repository ETD Library Guide or contact the ASU Graduate College at gradformat@asu.edu.
Commercial load balancers are often in use, and the production network at Arizona State University (ASU) is no exception. However, because the load balancer uses IP addresses, the solution does not apply to all applications. One such application is Rsyslog. This software processes syslog packets and stores them in files.…
Commercial load balancers are often in use, and the production network at Arizona State University (ASU) is no exception. However, because the load balancer uses IP addresses, the solution does not apply to all applications. One such application is Rsyslog. This software processes syslog packets and stores them in files. The loss rate of incoming log packets is high due to the incoming rate of the data. The Rsyslog servers are overwhelmed by the continuous data stream. To solve this problem a software defined networking (SDN) based load balancer is designed to perform a transport-level load balancing over the incoming load to Rsyslog servers. In this solution the load is forwarded to one Rsyslog server at a time, according to one of a Round-Robin, Random, or Load-Based policy. This gives time to other servers to process the data they have received and prevent them from being overwhelmed. The evaluation of the proposed solution is conducted a physical testbed with the same data feed as the commercial solution. The results suggest that the SDN-based load balancer is competitive with the commercial load balancer. Replacing the software OpenFlow switch with a hardware switch is likely to further improve the results.
With the software-defined networking trend growing, several network virtualization controllers have been developed in recent years. These controllers, also called network hypervisors, attempt to manage physical SDN based networks so that multiple tenants can safely share the same forwarding plane hardware without risk of being affected by or affecting other…
With the software-defined networking trend growing, several network virtualization controllers have been developed in recent years. These controllers, also called network hypervisors, attempt to manage physical SDN based networks so that multiple tenants can safely share the same forwarding plane hardware without risk of being affected by or affecting other tenants. However, many areas remain unexplored by current network hypervisor implementations. This thesis presents and evaluates some of the features offered by network hypervisors, such as full header space availability, isolation, and transparent traffic forwarding capabilities for tenants. Flow setup time and throughput are also measured and compared among different network hypervisors. Three different network hypervisors are evaluated: FlowVisor, VeRTIGO and OpenVirteX. These virtualization tools are assessed with experiments conducted on three different testbeds: an emulated Mininet scenario, a physical single-switch testbed, and also a remote GENI testbed. The results indicate that network hypervisors bring SDN flexibility to network virtualization, making it easier for network administrators to define with precision how the network is sliced and divided among tenants. This increased flexibility, however, may come with the cost of decreased performance, and also brings additional risks of interoperability due to a lack of standardization of virtualization methods.
