A Performance Evaluation of Block I/O Paravirtualization and Virtual Machine Images

Chapter
Part of the Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy book series (SSRI)

Abstract

Cloud Computing continues to be a rapidly evolving and prevalent paradigm where Quality of Service (QoS) has a pivotal role to play in guaranteeing performance and provisioning of resources on-demand in a timely fashion. Improvements to the performance of Cloud technology ensure provider profitability and an increased number of applications that can make use of a Cloud where overheads would have otherwise limited usage. This paper presents the results of a quantitative evaluation into the performance overheads of accessing images, via a Hypervisor’s virtual block I/O device using various image types. Two Virtual Machine Managers (VMMs) are evaluated: XEN and KVM alongside the image types they support. Benchmark results demonstrate the performance of XEN exceeding KVM in a greater number of benchmark tests. Conclusions are drawn from the results on the suitability of these technologies for data intensive applications and applications requiring highly dynamic resource sets, where making an uninformed decision on what technology or image type to use could prevent an application reaching its full potential.

Keywords

Cloud computing Performance evaluation Paravirtualization Virtual machine images 

References

  1. 1.
    Vouk, M.: Cloud computing - Issues, research and implementations. In: 2008 30th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), Piscataway, NJ, USA (2008) 31–40Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xiong, K., Perros, H.: Service performance and analysis in cloud computing. In: SERVICES 2009 - 5th 2009 World Congress on Services, Bangalore, India (2009) 693–700Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jun Zhu, Wei Dong, Zhefu Jiang, Xiaogang Shi, Zhen Xiao, Xiaoming Li: Improving the Performance of Hypervisor-Based Fault Tolerance. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel & Distributed Processing (IPDPS), Piscataway, NJ, USA (2010) 10–20Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Imada, T., Sato, M., Kimura, H.: Power and QoS performance characteristics of virtualized servers. In: Proceedings of the 2009 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing (GRID), Piscataway, NJ, USA (2009) 232–40Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu, C., Bai, Y., Luo, C.: Performance evaluation of parallel programming in virtual machine environment. In: NPC 2009 - 6th International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia (2009) 140–147Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansen, J. G., Jul, E.: Lithium: virtual machine storage for the cloud. In: SoCC’10: Proceedings of the 1st ACM symposium on Cloud computing, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2010) 15–26Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goiri, I., Julia, F., Ejarque, J., de Palol, M., Badia, R., Guitart, J., Torres, J.: Introducing virtual execution environments for application lifecycle management and SLA-driven resource distribution within service providers. In: Proceedings 2009 Eighth IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA), Piscataway, NJ, USA (2009) 211–18Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kesavan, M., Gavrilovska, A., Schwan, K.: Differential virtual time (DVT): rethinking I/O service differentiation for virtual machines. In: SoCC ’10: Proceedings of the 1st ACM symposium on Cloud computing, New York, NY, USA, ACM (2010) 27–38Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong-Jae Kang, Chei-Yol Kim, Kang-Ho Kim, Sung-In Jung: Proportional disk I/O bandwidth management for server virtualization environment. In: 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, Piscataway, NJ, USA (2008) 647–53Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barham, P., Dragovic, B., Fraser, K., Hand, S., Harris, T., Ho, A., Neugebauer, R., Pratt, I., Warfield, A.: Xen and the art of virtualization. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 37 (2003) 164–177Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    KVM - Kernel Based Virtual Machine. Website (2010) http://www.linux-kvm.org.
  12. 12.
    Popek, G., Goldberg, R.: Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures. Communications of the ACM 17 (1974) 412–21Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dong, Y., Dai, J., Huang, Z., Guan, H., Tian, K., Jiang, Y.: Towards high-quality I/O virtualization. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Haifa, Israel (2009) 12–22Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakajima, J., Mallick Asit K.: Hybrid Virtualization - Enhanced Virtualization for Linux. In: Proceedings of the Linux Symposium. (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    QEMU - Open Source Processor Emulation. Website (2010) http://www.qemu.org.
  16. 16.
    Goldberg, R.: Architectural Principles for Virtual Computer Systems. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (1972)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russell, R.: Virtio: towards a de-facto standard for virtual I/O devices. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 42 (2008) 95–103Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    IOzone - Filesystem Benchmark. Website (2010) http://www.iozone.org/.
  19. 19.
    Bonnie\(++\) - Benchmark Suite. Website (2010) http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/.
  20. 20.
    Padala, P., Zhu, X., Wang, Z., Singhal, S., Shin, K. G.: Performance Evaluation of Virtualization Technologies for Server Consolidation. Technical report, HP Labs (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stantchev, V.: Performance evaluation of cloud computing offerings. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Third International Conference on Advanced Engineering Computing and Applications in Sciences (ADVCOMP 2009), Piscataway, NJ, USA (2009) 187–92Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu Liang, S., Lu, X.: An efficient disk I/O characteristics collection method based on virtual machine technology. In: Proceedings - 10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, HPCC 2008, Dalian, China (2008) 943–949Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xianghua Xu, Feng Zhou, Jian Wan, Yucheng Jiang: Quantifying performance properties of virtual machine. In: Linux;program testing;software performance evaluation;systems analysis;virtual machines;. Volume 1., Piscataway, NJ, USA (2008) 24–8Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jianhua Che, Qinming He, Qinghua Gao, Dawei Huang: Performance measuring and comparing of virtual machine monitors. In: 2008 IEEE/IFIP 5th International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing. EUC 2008. Volume 2., Piscataway, NJ, USA (2008) 381–6Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deshane, T., Shepherd, Z., Matthews, J., Ben Yehuda, M., Shah, A., Rao, B.: Quantitative comparison of Xen and KVM. In: Xen Summit, Berkeley, CA, USA, USENIX Association (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Regola, N., Ducom, J.C.: Recommendations for Virtualization Technologies in High Performance Computing. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom 2010), Los Alamitos, CA, USA (2010) 409–16Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    VMware ESX Hypervisor. Website (2010) http://www.vmware.com/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingThe University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations