Advertisement

Performance Evaluation of Light-Weighted Virtualization for PaaS in Clouds

  • Xuehai Tang
  • Zhang Zhang
  • Min Wang
  • Yifang Wang
  • Qingqing Feng
  • Jizhong Han
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8630)

Abstract

The use of traditional virtualization technologies in Platform as a Service(PaaS) has been almost absent due to their inherent performance overhead. However, with the rapid development of light-weighted virtualization techniques, such as OpenVZ, Docker, Lmctfy and ZeroVM, they begin to be widely used in PaaS because of the possibility of obtaining a very low overhead comparable to the near-native performance of a bare server. In this work, we analyze these techniques and conduct a number of experiments in order to perform in-depth evaluations of light-weighted virtualization techniques for PaaS in clouds. We compare them in the proposed EIS(Efficiency, Isolation, Speed) framework. As far as we know, this paper is the first to propose an unified testing framework EIS to get a in-depth quantified analysis for Docker, Lmctfy, ZeroVM and as well as KVM, which is a representative of the mainstream hypervisor-based virtualization systems used today.

Keywords

Light-weighted Virtualization Docker Lmtfy ZeroVM KVM 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    AUFS, http://aufs.sourceforge.net/ (Online; accessed April 8, 2014)
  2. 2.
    BEA, http://developer.baidu.com/ (Online; accessed April 2, 2014)
  3. 3.
    Cgroups, https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroups/cgroups.txt (Online; accessed April 7, 2014)
  4. 4.
    Docker, https://www.docker.io/ (Online; accessed March 27, 2014)
  5. 5.
    IOZone Benchmark, http://www.iozone.org (Online; accessed April 10, 2014)
  6. 6.
    Isolation Benchmark, http://web2.clarkson.edu/class/cs644/isolation (Online; accessed April 12, 2014)
  7. 7.
    KVM, http://www.linux-kvm.org (Online; accessed March 11, 2014)
  8. 8.
    LINPACK Benchmark, http://www.netlib.org/benchmark, (Online; accessed April 10, 2014)
  9. 9.
    Linux container, https://linuxcontainers.org/ (Online; accessed April 7, 2014)
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Namespaces, http://lwn.net/Articles/531114/ (Online; accessed April 2, 2014)
  12. 12.
    NetPIPE Benchmark, http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/netpipe (Online; accessed April 11, 2014)
  13. 13.
    STREAM Benchmark, http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/ (Online; accessed April 10, 2014)
  14. 14.
    VMWare, http://www.vmware.com (Online; accessed March 19, 2014)
  15. 15.
    Xen, http://www.xen.org (Online; accessed March 9, 2014)
  16. 16.
    Zerovm, http://zerovm.org/ (Online; accessed March 29, 2014)
  17. 17.
    Chaudhary, V., Cha, M., Walters, J., Guercio, S., Gallo, S.: A comparison of virtualization technologies for hpc. In: 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, AINA 2008, pp. 861–868. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hindman, B., Konwinski, A., Zaharia, M., Ghodsi, A., Joseph, A.D., Katz, R., Shenker, S., Stoica, I.: Mesos: A platform for fine-grained resource sharing in the data center. In: Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 22–22 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Regola, N., Ducom, J.C.: Recommendations for virtualization technologies in high performance computing. In: 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), pp. 409–416 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sievers, F., Wilm, A., Dineen, D., Gibson, T.J., Karplus, K., Li, W., Lopez, R., McWilliam, H., Remmert, M., Söding, J., et al.: Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using clustal omega. Molecular systems biology 7(1) (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soltesz, S., Pötzl, H., Fiuczynski, M.E., Bavier, A., Peterson, L.: Container-based operating system virtualization: a scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors. In: ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, vol. 41, pp. 275–287. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vavilapalli, V.K., Murthy, A.C., Douglas, C., Agarwal, S., Konar, M., Evans, R., Graves, T., Lowe, J., Shah, H., Seth, S., et al.: Apache hadoop yarn: Yet another resource negotiator. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Cloud Computing, p. 5. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xavier, M.G., Neves, M.V., Rossi, F.D., Ferreto, T.C., Lange, T., De Rose, C.A.: Performance evaluation of container-based virtualization for high performance computing environments. In: 2013 21st Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP), pp. 233–240 (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yee, B., Sehr, D., Dardyk, G., Chen, J.B., Muth, R., Ormandy, T., Okasaka, S., Narula, N., Fullagar, N.: Native client: A sandbox for portable, untrusted x86 native code. In: 2009 30th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 79–93. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xuehai Tang
    • 1
  • Zhang Zhang
    • 1
  • Min Wang
    • 2
  • Yifang Wang
    • 3
  • Qingqing Feng
    • 2
  • Jizhong Han
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information EngineeringChinese Academy of SciencesChina
  2. 2.Institute of Computing TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesChina
  3. 3.Hunan UniversityChina

Personalised recommendations