SC'13 Presentation

Presentation of our work on Network aware VM placement @ NDM workshop, SuperComputing'13.

Other talks at http://dharmeshkakadia.github.io/talks

Transcript

1. Network-aware Virtual Machine Consolidation for Large Data Centers Dharmesh Kakadia 1, Nandish Kopri 2 and Vasudeva Varma 1 1IIIT-Hyderabad, India 2Unisys Corp., India 1 / 24
2. Network Performance in Cloud In Amazon EC2, TCP/UDP throughput experienced by applications can fluctuate rapidly between 1 Gb/s and zero. abnormally large packet delay variations among Amazon EC2 instances. 1 1G. Wang et al. The impact of virtualization on network performance of amazon ec2 data center. (INFOCOM’2010) 2 / 24
3. Scalability Scheduling algorithm has to scale to millions of requests Network traffic at higher layers pose signifiant challenge for data center network scaling New applications in data center are pushing need for traffic localization in data center network 3 / 24
4. Problem VM placement algorithm to consolidate VMs using network traffic patterns 4 / 24
5. Subproblems How to identify? - cluster VMs based on their traffic exchange patterns How to place? -placement algorithm to place VMs to localize internal datacenter traffic and improve application performance 5 / 24
6. How to identify? VMCluster is a group of VMs that has large communication cost (cij ) over time period T. 6 / 24
7. How to identify? VMCluster is a group of VMs that has large communication cost (cij ) over time period T. cij = AccessRateij × Delayij AccessRateij is rate of data exchange between VMi and VMj and Delayij is the communication delay between them. 6 / 24
8. VMCluster Formation Algorithm AccessMatrixn×n =      0 c12 · · · c1n c21 0 · · · c2n . . . . . . . . . cn1 cn2 · · · 0      cij is maintained over time period T in moving window fashion and mean is taken as the value. for each row Ai ∈ AccessMatrix do if maxElement(Ai ) > (1 + opt threshold) ∗ avg comm cost then form a new VMCluster from non-zero elements of Ai end if end for 7 / 24
9. How to place ? 8 / 24
10. How to place ? Which VM to migrate? 8 / 24
11. How to place ? Which VM to migrate? Where can we migrate? 8 / 24
12. How to place ? Which VM to migrate? Where can we migrate? Will the the effort be worth? 8 / 24
13. Communication Cost Tree Each node represents cost of communication of devices connected to it. 9 / 24
14. Example : VMCluster 10 / 24
15. Example : CandidateSet3 11 / 24
16. Example : CandidateSet2 12 / 24
17. How to place ? 13 / 24
18. How to place ? Which VM to migrate? VMtoMigrate = arg max VMi |VMCluster| j=1 cij 13 / 24
19. How to place ? Which VM to migrate? VMtoMigrate = arg max VMi |VMCluster| j=1 cij Where can we migrate? CandidateSeti (VMClusterj ) = {c | where c and VMClusterj have a common ancestor at level i} − CandidateSeti+1(VMClusterj ) 13 / 24
20. How to place ? Which VM to migrate? VMtoMigrate = arg max VMi |VMCluster| j=1 cij Where can we migrate? CandidateSeti (VMClusterj ) = {c | where c and VMClusterj have a common ancestor at level i} − CandidateSeti+1(VMClusterj ) Will the the effort be worth? PerfGain = |VMCluster| j=1 cij − cij cij 13 / 24
21. Consolidation Algorithm Select the VM to migrate Identify CandidateSets Select destination PM Overload the destination Gain is significant 14 / 24
22. Consolidation Algorithm for VMClusterj ∈ VMClusters do Select VMtoMigrate for i from leaf to root do Form CandidateSeti (VMClusterj − VMtoMigrate) for PM ∈ candidateSeti do if UtilAfterMigration(PM,VMtoMigrate) <overload threshold AND PerfGain(PM,VMtoMigrate) > significance threshold then migrate VM to PM continue to next VMCluster end if end for end for end for 15 / 24
23. Trace Statistics Traces from three real world data centers, two from universities (uni1, uni2) and one from private data center (prv1) [4]. Property Uni1 Uni2 Prv1 Number of Short non-I/O-intensive jobs 513 3637 3152 Number of Short I/O-intensive jobs 223 1834 1798 Number of Medium non-I/O-intensive jobs 135 628 173 Number of Medium I/O-intensive jobs 186 864 231 Number of Long non-I/O-intensive jobs 112 319 59 Number of Long I/O-intensive jobs 160 418 358 Number of Servers 500 1093 1088 Number of Devices 22 36 96 Over Subscription 2:1 47:1 8:3 16 / 24
24. Experimental Evaluation We compared our approach to traditional placement approaches like Vespa [1] and previous network-aware algorithm like Piao’s approach [2]. Extended NetworkCloudSim [3] to support SDN. Floodlight2 as our SDN controller. The server properties are assumed to be HP ProLiant ML110 G5 (1 x [Xeon 3075 2660 MHz, 2 cores]), 4GB) connected through 1G using HP ProCurve switches. 2http://www.projectfloodlight.org/ 17 / 24
25. Results : Performance Improvement I/O intensive jobs are benefited most, but others also share the benefit Short jobs are important for overall performance improvement 18 / 24
26. Results : Number of Migrations Every migration is not equally beneficial 19 / 24
27. Results : Traffic Localization 60% increase ToR traffic (vs 30% by Piao’s approach) 70% decrease Core traffic (vs 37% by Piao’s approach) 20 / 24
28. Results : Complexity – Time, Variance and Migrations Measure Trace Vespa Piao’s approach Our approach Avg. schedul- ing Time (ms) Uni1 504 677 217 Uni2 784 1197 376 Prv1 718 1076 324 21 / 24
29. Results : Complexity – Time, Variance and Migrations Measure Trace Vespa Piao’s approach Our approach Avg. schedul- ing Time (ms) Uni1 504 677 217 Uni2 784 1197 376 Prv1 718 1076 324 Worst-case scheduling Time (ms) Uni1 846 1087 502 Uni2 973 1316 558 Prv1 894 1278 539 21 / 24
30. Results : Complexity – Time, Variance and Migrations Measure Trace Vespa Piao’s approach Our approach Avg. schedul- ing Time (ms) Uni1 504 677 217 Uni2 784 1197 376 Prv1 718 1076 324 Worst-case scheduling Time (ms) Uni1 846 1087 502 Uni2 973 1316 558 Prv1 894 1278 539 Variance in scheduling Time Uni1 179 146 70 Uni2 234 246 98 Prv1 214 216 89 21 / 24
31. Results : Complexity – Time, Variance and Migrations Measure Trace Vespa Piao’s approach Our approach Avg. schedul- ing Time (ms) Uni1 504 677 217 Uni2 784 1197 376 Prv1 718 1076 324 Worst-case scheduling Time (ms) Uni1 846 1087 502 Uni2 973 1316 558 Prv1 894 1278 539 Variance in scheduling Time Uni1 179 146 70 Uni2 234 246 98 Prv1 214 216 89 Number of Mi- grations Uni1 154 213 56 Uni2 547 1145 441 Prv1 423 597 96 21 / 24
32. Conclusion Network aware placement (and traffic localization) helps in Network scaling. VM Scheduler should be aware of migrations. Think like a scheduler and think rationally. You may not want all the migrations. 22 / 24
33. Thank you Send your queries to @DharmeshKakadia dharmesh.kakadia@research.iiit.ac.in
34. References 1. C. Tang, M. Steinder, M. Spreitzer, and G. Pacifici. A scalable application placement controller for enterprise data centers. (WWW’2007) 2. J. Piao and J. Yan. A network-aware virtual machine placement and migration approach in cloud computing. (GCC’2010) 3. S. K. Garg and R. Buyya. Networkcloudsim: Modelling parallel applications in cloud simulations. (UCC’2011) 4. T. Benson, A. Akella, and D. A. Maltz. Network traffic characteristics of data centers in the wild. (IMC’2010) 24 / 24