Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 751–764 | Cite as

An Adaptive Dynamic Request Scheduling Model for Multi-socket, Multi-core Web Servers

Research Article - Computer Engineering and Computer Science
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

To implement a high-performance web server, it is necessary to fully exploit the performance of multi-core CPUs in the web server. Traditional dynamic request scheduling algorithms, such as first-come-first-served (FCFS), adopted in multi-socket, multi-core web servers, often cause multi-replica problem and ping-pong effect. We proposed a new dynamic request scheduling model for multi-socket, multi-core web servers in this paper to solve the above-mentioned issues. To fully exploit the performance of multi-socket, multi-core systems, the new model tries to allocate the dynamic requests of the same kind to the same core. Furthermore, to avoid load imbalance between the cores, the new model dynamically allocates dynamic request based on its service time and the load status of each core. We developed a simulation web server based on the new model and did some simulation experiments on it. The results of the experiments show that the new model could reduce the response time of dynamic requests in contrast to other scheduling algorithms, such as FCFS algorithm, which means the new model provides a solution to the multi-replica problem and ping-pong effect in multi-socket, multi-core systems.

Keywords

Dynamic requests Scheduling Web server Multi-core Multi-socket 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Harji, A.S.; Buhr, P.A.; Brecht, T.: Comparing high-performance multi-core web-server architectures. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Systems and Storage Conference (SYSTOR’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 1 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernández-Orallo, E.; Vila-Carbó, J.: Web server performance analysis using histogram workload models. Comput. Netw. 53, 2727–2739 (2009)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharifian, S.; Motamedi, S.A.; Akbari, M.K.: A predictive and probabilistic load-balancing algorithm for cluster-based web servers. Appl. Soft Comput. 11, 970–981 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Weij, W.; Bhulai, S.; van der Mei, R.: Dynamic thread assignment in web server performance optimization. Perform. Eval. 66, 301–310 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drepper, U.: What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory. Red Hat, Chester (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guo, D.: Multicore scheduling for network applications based on highest random weight. Dissertation, University of California Riverside (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    You, G; Wang, X.; Zhao, Y.: A dynamic requests scheduling model based on prediction in multi-core web server. In: The Fourth International Symposium on Cloud and Service Computing (SC2 2014), Beijing, China, pp. 304–312 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siddha, S.B.: Multi-core and Linux kernel. http://oss.intel.com/pdf/mclinux.pdf
  9. 9.
    Rangan, K.K.; Wei, G.Y.; Brooks, D.: Thread motion: fine-grained power management for multi-core systems. ACM SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News 37(3), 302–313 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    You, G.; Zhao, Y.: A weighted-fair-queuing (WFQ)-based dynamic request scheduling approach in a multi-core system. Fut. Gener. Comput. Syst. 28, 1110–1120 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo, D.; Bhuyan, L.N.; Liu, B.: An efficient parallelized L7-filter design for multicore servers. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 20(5), 1426–1439 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choi, Gyu Sang; Das, Chita R.: A superscalar software architecture model for multi-core processors. J. Syst. Softw. 83, 1823–1837 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chonka, A.; Chong, S.K.; Zhou, W., Xiang, Y.: Multi-core defense system (MSDS) for protecting computer infrastructure against DDoS attacks. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Ninth International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Dunedin, New Zealand, pp. 503–508 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chonka, A.; Zhou, W.; Ngo, L.; Xiang, Y.: Ubiquitous multicore(UM) methodology for multimedia. Int. J. Multimed. Ubiquitous Eng. 4, 145–156 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhuravlev, S.; Blagodurov, S.; Fedorova, A.: Addressing shared resource contention in multicore processors via scheduling. ACM Sigplan Not. 38(1), 129–142 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyd-Wickizer, S.; Clements, A.T.; Mao, Y.; Pesterev, A.; Kaashoek, M.F.; Morris, R.; Zeldovich, N.: An analysis of linux scalability to many cores. In: Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI’10), USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 1–8 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumar, A.; Huggahalli, R.; Makineni, S.: Characterization of direct cache access on multi-core systems and 10gbe. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 15th International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture, Raleigh, NC, pp. 341–352 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hashemian, R.; Krishnamurthy, D.; Arlitt, M.; Carlsson, N.: Characterizing the scalability of a web application on a multi-core server. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 26, 2027–2052 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raghunathan, B.; Garg, S.; Raghunathan, B.; Garg, S.: Job arrival rate aware scheduling for asymmetric multi-core servers in the dark silicon era. In: 2014 International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis, New Delhi, India, pp. 1–9 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bolla, R.; Bruschi, R.: PC-based software routers: high performance and application service support. In: Workshop on Programmable Routers for Extensible Service of Tomorrow (PRESTO’08), Seattle, Washington, USA, pp. 27–32 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hooker, R.E.; Greer, J.M.: Combined L2 cache and L1D cache prefetcher: US, US 8645631 B2[P] (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharifian, S.; Motamedi, S.A.; Akbari, M.K.: A content-based load balancing algorithm with admission control for cluster webservers. Fut. Gener. Comput. Syst. 24, 775–787 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    First the tick, now the tock: Intel microarchitecture (nehalem). White Paper (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Apache. The Apache Software Foundation. http://www.apache.org
  25. 25.
    Crovella, M.; Bestavros, A.: Self-similarity in world wide web traffic: evidence and possible causes. IEEE ACM Trans. Netw. 5(6), 835–846 (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khayari, El Abdouni; Sadre, R.; Haverkort, B.: The pseudo-self-similar traffic model: application and validation. Perform. Eval. 56(1–4), 3–22 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Willinger, W.; Taqqu, M.; Erramilli, A.: A bibliographical guide to self-similar traffic and performance modeling for modern high-speed networks. Theory Appl. Stoch. Netw. 4, 339–366 (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cesar, R.P.J.; Deni, T.R.: Performance analysis of time-domain algorithms for self-similar traffic. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Computers. IEEE Computer Society, p. 28 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Villegas, D.; Antoniou, A.; Sadjadi, S.M.; Iosup, A.: An analysis of provisioning and allocation policies for infrastructure-as-a-service clouds. In: 12th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 612–619 (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park, K.; Willinger, W.: Self-similar network traffic: an overview. Self-similar Network Traffic and Performance Evaluation, pp. 1–38. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leland, W.E.; Taqqu, M.S.; Willinger, W.; Wilson, D.V.: On the self-similar nature of ethernet traffic. ACM/SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 23, 183–193 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Erranmillj, A.; Narayan, O.; Willinger, W.: Experimental queuing analysis with long-range dependent packet traffic. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 4(2), 209–223 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sahinoglu, Z.; Tekinay, S.: On multimedia networks: self-similar traffic and network performance. IEEE Commun. Mag. 37(1), 48–52 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Park, K.; Kim, G.; Crovella, M.: On the effect of traffic self-similarity on network performance. In: Proceedings of 1997 SPIE International Conference on Performance and Control of Network Systems, Bellingham, USA, pp. 296–310 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Science and Technology, Center for Information TechnologyBeijing University of Chemical TechnologyBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations