the only constant is change: incorporating time-varying bandwidth reservations in data centers

1

The Only Constant is Change: Incorporating Time-Varying Bandwidth

Reservations in Data Centers

Di Xie, Ning Ding, Y. Charlie Hu, Ramana Kompella

2

Cloud Computing is Hot

Private Cluster

3

Key Factors for Cloud Viability

• Cost

• Performance

4

Performance Variability in Cloud

• BW variation in cloud due to contention [Schad’10 VLDB]

• Causing unpredictable performance

Local Cluster Amazon EC20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Bandwidth (Mbps)

Network performance variability

Tenant Enterprise

Map Reduce

Job

Results

• Data analytics on an isolated clusterCompletion

Time4 hours

Network performance variability

Tenant Enterprise

Map Reduce

Job

Results

• Data analytics on an isolated clusterCompletion

Time4 hours

• Data analytics in a multi-tenant datacenter

Tenant

Map Reduce

Job

Results

Datacenter

CompletionTime

10-16 hours

Network performance variability

Tenant Enterprise

Map Reduce

Job

Results

Data analytics on an isolated clusterCompletion

Time4 hours

Data analytics in a multi-tenant datacenter

Tenant

Map Reduce

Job

Results

Datacenter

CompletionTime

10-16 hours

Variable tenant costsExpected cost (based on 4 hour completion time) = $100

Actual cost = $250-400

Network performance variability

Tenant Enterprise

Map Reduce

Job

Results

• Data analytics on an isolated clusterCompletion

Time4 hours

• Data analytics in a multi-tenant datacenter

Tenant

Map Reduce

Job

Results

Datacenter

CompletionTime

10-16 hours

Variable tenant costsExpected cost (based on 4 hour completion time) = $100

Actual cost = $250-400

Unpredictability of application performance and tenant costs is a key hindrance to cloud adoption

Key Contributor: Network performance variation

9

Reserving BW in Data Centers

• SecondNet [Guo’10]– Per VM-pair, per VM access bandwidth reservation

• Oktopus [Ballani’11]– Virtual Cluster (VC)– Virtual Oversubscribed Cluster (VOC)

10

How BW Reservation Works

. . .

Virtual Cluster Model

Time

Bandwidth

N VMs

VirtualSwitch

1. Determine the model 2. Allocate and enforce the model

0 T

B

Only fixed-BW reservationRequest <N, B>

11

Network Usage for MapReduce Jobs

Hadoop Sort, 4GB per VM

12

Network Usage for MapReduce Jobs

Hadoop Sort, 4GB per VM

Hadoop Word Count, 2GB per VM

13

Network Usage for MapReduce Jobs

Hadoop Sort, 4GB per VM

Hadoop Word Count, 2GB per VM

Hive Join, 6GB per VM

14

Network Usage for MapReduce Jobs

Hadoop Sort, 4GB per VM

Hadoop Word Count, 2GB per VM

Hive Join, 6GB per VM

Hive Aggregation, 2GB per VM

15

Network Usage for MapReduce Jobs

Hadoop Sort, 4GB per VM

Hadoop Word Count, 2GB per VM

Hive Join, 6GB per VM

Hive Aggregation, 2GB per VM

Time-varying network usage

16

Motivating Example

• 4 machines, 2 VMs/machine, non-oversubscribednetwork

• Hadoop Sort– N: 4 VMs– B: 500Mbps/VM

1Gbps

500Mbps500Mbps

500Mbps

Not enough BW

17

Motivating Example

• 4 machines, 2 VMs/machine, non-oversubscribednetwork

• Hadoop Sort– N: 4 VMs– B: 500Mbps/VM

1Gbps

500Mbps

18

Under Fixed-BW Reservation Model

1Gbps

500MbpsJob3Job2

Virtual Cluster Model

Job1 Time

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

500

Bandwidth

19

Under Time-Varying Reservation Model

1Gbps

500Mbps

TIVC Model

Job1 Time

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

500Job2Job3Job4Job5

J1 J2J3 J4J5

Bandwidth

Doubling VM, network utilization and the job

throughput

HadoopSort

20

Temporally-Interleaved Virtual Cluster (TIVC)

• Key idea: Time-Varying BW Reservations

• Compared to fixed-BW reservation– Improves utilization of data center

• Better network utilization• Better VM utilization

– Increases cloud provider’s revenue– Reduces cloud user’s cost– Without sacrificing job performance

21

Challenges in Realizing TIVC

. . .

Virtual Cluster Model

Time

Bandwidth

N VMs

VirtualSwitch 0 T

B

Request <N, B>

Time

Bandwidth

0 T

B

Request <N, B(t)>

Q1: What are right model functions?

Q2: How to automatically derive the models?

22

Challenges in Realizing TIVC

Q3: How to efficiently allocate TIVC?

Q4: How to enforce TIVC?

23

Challenges in Realizing TIVC

• What are the right model functions?

• How to automatically derive the models?

• How to efficiently allocate TIVC?

• How to enforce TIVC?

24

How to Model Time-Varying BW?

Hadoop Hive Join

25

TIVC Models

Virtual Cluster

T11 T32

26

Hadoop Sort

27

Hadoop Word Count

v

28

Hadoop Hive Join

29

Hadoop Hive Aggregation

30

Challenges in Realizing TIVC

What are the right model functions?

• How to automatically derive the models?

• How to efficiently allocate TIVC?

• How to enforce TIVC?

31

Possible Approach

• “White-box” approach– Given source code and data of cloud application,

analyze quantitative networking requirement– Very difficult in practice

• Observation: Many jobs are repeated many times– E.g., 40% jobs are recurring in Bing’s production data

center [Agarwal’12]– Of course, data itself may change across runs, but size

remains about the same

32

Our Approach

• Solution: “Black-box” profiling based approach1. Collect traffic trace from profiling run2. Derive TIVC model from traffic trace

• Profiling: Same configuration as production runs– Same number of VMs– Same input data size per VM– Same job/VM configuration

How much BW should we reserve to the application?

33

Impact of BW Capping

No-elongation BW threshold

34

Choosing BW Cap

• Tradeoff between performance and cost– Cap > threshold: same performance, costs more– Cap < threshold: lower performance, may cost less

• Our Approach: Expose tradeoff to user1. Profile under different BW caps2. Expose run times and cost to user3. User picks the appropriate BW cap

Only below threshold ones

35

From Profiling to Model Generation

• Collect traffic trace from each VM– Instantaneous throughput of 10ms bin

• Generate models for individual VMs

• Combine to obtain overall job’s TIVC model– Simplify allocation by working with one model– Does not lose efficiency since per-VM models are

roughly similar for MapReduce-like applications

36

Generate Model for Individual VM

1. Choose Bb

2. Periods where B > Bb, set to BcapBW

Time

Bcap

Bb

37

Challenges in Realizing TIVC

What are the right model functions?

How to automatically derive the models?

• How to efficiently allocate TIVC?

• How to enforce TIVC?

38

TIVC Allocation Algorithm

• Spatio-temporal allocation algorithm– Extends VC allocation algorithm to time dimension– Employs dynamic programming– Chooses lowest level subtree

• Properties– Locality aware– Efficient and scalable

• 99th percentile 28ms on a 64,000-VM data center in scheduling 5,000 jobs

39

Challenges in Realizing TIVC

What are the right model functions?

How to automatically derive the models?

How to efficiently allocate TIVC?

• How to enforce TIVC?

40

Enforcing TIVC Reservation

• Possible to enforce completely in hypervisor– Does not have control over upper level links– Requires online rate monitoring and feedback– Increases hypervisor overhead and complexity

• Enforcing BW reservation in switches– Most small jobs will fit into a rack– Only a few large jobs cross the core– Avoid complexity in hypervisors

41

Challenges in Realizing TIVC

What are the right model functions?

How to automatically derive the models?

How to efficiently allocate TIVC?

How to enforce TIVC?

42

Proteus: Implementing TIVC Models

1. Determine the model

2. Allocate and enforce the model

43

Evaluation

• Large-scale simulation– Performance– Cost– Allocation algorithm

• Prototype implementation– Small-scale testbed

44

Simulation Setup

• 3-level tree topology– 16,000 Hosts x 4 VMs– 4:1 oversubscription

• Workload– N: exponential distribution around mean 49 – B(t): derive from real Hadoop apps

50Gbps

10Gbps

…

… …1Gbps

…

20 Aggr Switch

20 ToR Switch

40 Hosts

… … …

45

Batched Jobs

• Scenario: 5,000 time-insensitive jobs

42% 21% 23% 35%

1/3 of each type

Completion time reduction

All rest results are for mixed

46

Varying Oversubscription and Job Size

25.8% reduction for non-oversubscribed

network

47

Dynamically Arriving Jobs

• Scenario: Accommodate users’ requests in shared data center– 5,000 jobs arrives dynamically with varying loads

Rejected: VC: 9.5%

TIVC: 3.4%

48

Analysis: Higher Concurrency

• Under 80% load

7% higher job concurrency

28% higher VM utilization

Rejected jobs are large

28% higher revenue

Charge VMs

V M

49

Testbed Experiment

• Setup– 18 machines

• Real 30 MapReduce jobs– 10 Sort– 10 Hive Join– 10 Hive Aggre.

50

Testbed ResultTIVC finishes job faster than VC,

Baseline finishes the fastest

Baseline suffers at variability of completion time, TIVC achieves

similar performance as VC

51

Conclusion• Network reservations in cloud are important

– Previous work proposed fixed-BW reservations– However, cloud apps exhibit time-varying BW usage

• They propose TIVC abstraction – Provides time-varying network reservations– Uses simple pulse functions– Automatically generates model– Efficiently allocates and enforces reservations

• Proteus shows TIVC benefits both cloud provider and users significantly