Advertisement

Migrating LinuX Containers Using CRIU

  • Simon PickartzEmail author
  • Niklas Eiling
  • Stefan Lankes
  • Lukas Razik
  • Antonello Monti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9945)

Abstract

Process migration is one of the most important techniques in modern computing centers. It enables the implementation of load balancing strategies and eases the system administration. As supercomputers continue to grow in size, according mechanisms become interesting to High-Performance Computing (HPC) as well.

Usually, migration is accomplished by means of hypervisor-based virtualization. However, container-based approaches are an attractive alternative for HPC to minimize the performance penalties. In contrast to virtual machine migration, the migration of operating system containers is mostly unexplored in the context of HPC until today.

In this paper we present a prototype implementation of a libvirt driver enabling the migration of LinuX Containers. We evaluate the driver in terms of overhead added by the additional software layer and compare its migration performance with that of virtual machines based on KVM.

Keywords

LinuX Containers CRIU Migration HPC 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research and development was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under Grant 01|H13004B (Project FaST).

References

  1. 1.
    namespaces(7) Linux Programmer’s Manual, Sept 2014. http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/namespaces.7.html
  2. 2.
    Bolte, M., Sievers, M., Birkenheuer, G., Niehörster, O., Brinkmann, A.: Non-intrusive virtualization management using libvirt. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, pp. 574–579 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, C., Fraser, K., Hand, S., Hansen, J.G., Jul, E., Limpach, C., Pratt, I., Warfield, A.: Live migration of virtual machines. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation - vol. 2, pp. 273–286 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dua, R., Raja, A.R., Kakadia, D.: Virtualization vs containerization to support PaaS. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), pp. 610–614 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Felter, W., Ferreira, A., Rajamony, R., Rubio, J.: An updated performance comparison of virtual machines and linux containers. In: 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), pp. 171–172 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hargrove, P.H., Duell, J.C.: Berkeley lab checkpoint/restart (BLCR) for linux clusters. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 46, 494 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hines, M.R., Gopalan, K.: Post-copy based live virtual machine migration using adaptive pre-paging and dynamic self-ballooning. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS International Conference on Virtual Execution Environments, pp. 51–60 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, W., Kanso, A.: Comparing containers versus virtual machines for achieving high availability. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), pp. 353–358 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menage, P.: Kernel Documentation, cgroups. kernel.org. https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroups/cgroups.txt
  10. 10.
    Milojičić, D.S., Douglis, F., Paindaveine, Y., Wheeler, R., Zhou, S.: Process migration. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 32, 241–299 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mirkin, A., Kuznetsov, A., Kolyshkin, K.: Containers checkpointing and live migration. In: Proceedings of the Linux Symposium, pp. 85–90 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ondrejka, P., Silas, D., Prpi, M., Landmann, R.: Red Hat enterprise Linux 7 resource management guide. Technical report, Red Hat, Inc. (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padala, P., Zhu, X., Wang, Z., Singhal, S., Shin, K.G.: Performance evaluation of virtualization technologies for server consolidation. HP Labs Technical report (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pickartz, S., Breitbart, J., Lankes, S.: Implications of process-migration in virtualized environments. In: Proceedings of the 1st COSH Workshop on Co-Scheduling of HPC Applications, pp. 31–36, January 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pickartz, S., Gad, R., Lankes, S., Nagel, L., Süß, T., Brinkmann, A., Krempel, S.: Migration techniques in HPC environments. In: Lopes, L., et al. (eds.) Euro-Par 2014. LNCS, vol. 8806, pp. 486–497. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14313-2_41 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Walters, J.P., Chaudhary, V., Cha, M., Jr., S.G., Gallo, S.M.: A comparison of virtualization technologies for HPC. In: 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA 2008), pp. 861–868 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xavier, M.G., Neves, M.V., Rossi, F.D., Ferreto, T.C., Lange, T., Rose, C.: Performance evaluation of container-based virtualization for high performance computing environments. In: 2013 21st Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Processing, pp. 233–240 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xavier, M.G., Veiga Neves, M., de Rose, F., Augusto, C.: A performance comparison of container-based virtualization systems for MapReduce clusters. In: 2014 22nd Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Processing, pp. 299–306 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Pickartz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Niklas Eiling
    • 1
  • Stefan Lankes
    • 1
  • Lukas Razik
    • 1
  • Antonello Monti
    • 1
  1. 1.E.ON Energy Research Center, Institute for Automation of Complex Power SystemsRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations