Advertisement

Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 219–223 | Cite as

Labeled von Neumann Architecture for Software-Defined Cloud

  • Yun-Gang Bao
  • Sa Wang
Short Paper
  • 472 Downloads

Abstract

As cloud computing is moving forward rapidly, cloud providers have been encountering great challenges: long tail latency, low utilization, and high interference. They intend to co-locate multiple workloads on a single server to improve the resource utilization. But the co-located applications suffer from severe performance interference and long tail latency, which lead to unpredictable user experience. To meet these challenges, software-defined cloud has been proposed to facilitate tighter coordination among application, operating system and hardware. Users’ quality of service (QoS) requirements could be propagated all the way down to the hardware with differential management mechanisms. However, there is little hardware support to maintain and guarantee users’ QoS requirements. To this end, this paper proposes Labeled von Neumann Architecture (LvNA), which introduces a labelling mechanism to convey more software’s semantic information such as QoS and security to the underlying hardware. LvNA is able to correlate labels with various entities, e.g., virtual machine, process and thread, and propagate labels in the whole machine and program differentiated services based on rules. We consider LvNA to be a fundamental hardware support to the software-defined cloud.

Keywords

software-defined cloud von Neumann architecture tail latency performance interference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

References

  1. [1]
    Mell P M, Grance T. SP 800-145, the NIST definition of cloud computing. Tech. Rep., Gaithersburg, MD, United States, 2011. http:///www.nist.gov/node/568586, Feb. 2017.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Shvachko K, Kuang H, Radia S, Chansler R. The Hadoop distributed file system. In Proc. the 26th IEEE MSST, May 2010.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Zaharia M, Chowdhury M, Das T, Dave A, Ma J, Mc- Cauley M, Franklin M J, Shenker S, Stoica I. Resilient distributed datasets: A fault-tolerant abstraction for inmemory cluster computing. In Proc. the 9th USENIX NSDT, April 2012, pp.15-28.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Gonzalez J E, Low Y, Gu H, Bickson D, Guestrin C. Powergraph: Distributed graph-parallel computation on natural graphs. In Proc. the 10th USENIX OSDI, Oct. 2012.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Kaplan J M, Forrest W, Kindle N. Revolutionizing data center energy efficiency. Tech. Rep., McKinsey & Company, July 2008. http://pdfsr.com/pdf/revolutionizingdata-center-energy-efficiency, Feb. 2017.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Liu H. A measurement study of server utilization in public clouds. In Proc. the 9th IEEE International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, Dec. 2011, pp.435-442.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Dean J, Barroso L A. The tail at scale. Commun. ACM, 2013, 56(2): 74-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Grandl R, Chen Y, Khalid J, Yang S, Anand A, Benson T, Akella A. Harmony: Coordinating network, compute, and storage in software-defined clouds. In Proc. the 4th Annual Symposium on Cloud Computing, Oct. 2013, pp.53:1–53:2.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Xu Y, Musgrave Z, Noble B, Bailey M. Bobtail: Avoiding long tails in the cloud. In Proc. the 10th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, Apr. 2013, pp.329-342.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Alizadeh M, Greenberg A, Maltz D A, Padhye J, Patel P, Prabhakar B, Sengupta S, Sridharan M. Data Center TCP (DCTCP). In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Aug.30-Sept.3, 2010.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Alizadeh M, Kabbani A, Edsall T, Prabhakar B, Vahdat A, Yasuda M. Less is more: Trading a little bandwidth for ultra-low latency in the data center. In Proc. the 9th USENIX NSDI, April 2012, pp.253-266.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Vamanan B, Hasan J, Vijaykumar T. Deadline-aware datacenter TCP (D2tcp). In Proc. the ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication, Aug. 2012, pp.115-126.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Wilson C, Ballani H, Karagiannis T, Rowtron A. Better never than late: Meeting deadlines in datacenter networks. In Proc. the ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 2011, pp.50-61.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Zats D, Das T, Mohan P, Borthakur D, Katz R. DeTail: Reducing the flow completion time tail in datacenter networks. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 2012, 42: 139-150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hong C Y, Caesar M, Godfrey P B. Finishing flows quickly with preemptive scheduling. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 2012, 42: 127-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Leverich J, Kozyrakis C. Reconciling high server utilization and sub-millisecond quality-of-service. In Proc. the 9th European Conference on Computer Systems, Apr. 2014, pp.4:1-4:14.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kapoor R, Porter G, Tewari M, Voelker G M, Vahdat A. Chronos: Predictable low latency for data center applications. In Proc. the 3rd ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, Oct. 2012, pp.9:1-9:14.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Sukwong O, Kim H S. Is co-scheduling too expensive for SMP VMs? In Proc. the 6th Conference on Computer Systems, Apr. 2011, pp.257-272.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Uhlig V, LeVasseur J, Skoglund E, Dannowski U. Towards scalable multiprocessor virtual machines. In Proc. the 3rd Conference on Virtual Machine Research and Technology Symposium — Volume 3, May 2004, pp.43-56.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Ding X, Gibbons P B, Kozuch M A, Shan J. Gleaner: Mitigating the blocked-waiter wakeup problem for virtualized multicore applications. In Proc. the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, June 2014, pp.73-84.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Kambadur M, Moseley T, Hank R, Kim M A. Measuring interference between live datacenter applications. In Proc. the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, Nov. 2012, pp.51:1-51:12.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Blagodurov S, Zhuravlev S, Fedorova A, Kamali A. A case for NUMA-aware contention management on multicore systems. In Proc. the 19th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques, Sept. 2010, pp.557-558.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Tam D, Azimi R, Stumm M. Thread clustering: Sharingaware scheduling on SMP-CMP-SMT multiprocessors. In Proc. the 2nd ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems, Mar. 2007, pp.47-58.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Zhang Y, Laurenzano M A, Mars J, Tang L. SMiTe: Precise QoS prediction on real-system SMT processors to improve utilization in warehouse scale computers. In Proc. the 47th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 2014, pp.406-418.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Cazorla F J, Ramírez A, Valero M, Fernández E. Dynamically controlled resource allocation in SMT processors. In Proc. the 37th Annual International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 2004, pp.171-182.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Choi S, Yeung D. Learning-based SMT processor resource distribution via hill-climbing. In Proc. the 33rd International Symposium on Computer Architecture, June 2006, pp.239-251.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Eyerman S, Eeckhout L. Per-thread cycle accounting in SMT processors. In Proc. the 14th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Mar. 2009, pp.133-144.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Cheng L, Wang C L. vBalance: Using interrupt load balance to improve I/O performance for SMP virtual machines. In Proc. the 3rd ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, Oct. 2012, pp.2:1-2:14.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Wang G, Ng T S E. The impact of virtualization on network performance of Amazon EC2 data center. In Proc. the 29th Conference on Information Communications, Mar. 2010, pp.1163-1171.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Xu Y, Bailey M, Noble B, Jahanian F. Small is better: Avoiding latency traps in virtualized data centers. In Proc. the 4th Annual Symposium on Cloud Computing, Oct. 2013, pp.7:1-7:16.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Chiang R C, Huang H H. TRACON: Interference-aware scheduling for data-intensive applications in virtualized environments. In Proc. the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, Nov. 2011, pp.47:1-47:12.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Nathuji R, Kansal A, Ghaffarkhah A. Q-clouds: Managing performance interference effects for QoS-aware clouds. In Proc. the 5th European Conference on Computer Systems, Apr. 2010, pp.237-250.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Mars J, Tang L, Hundt R, Skadron K, Soffa M L. Bubbleup: Increasing utilization in modern warehouse scale computers via sensible co-locations. In Proc. the 44th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, Dec. 2011, pp.248-259.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Shieh A, Kandula S, Greenberg A, Kim C, Saha B. Sharing the data center network. In Proc. the 8th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, Mar.30-Apr.1, 2011.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Cherkasova L, Gardner R. Measuring CPU overhead for I/O processing in the Xen virtual machine monitor. In Proc. the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, Apr. 2005, pp.387-390.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC & Science Press, China 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Computer Architecture, Institute of Computing TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations