ICSS 2016: Advances in Systems Science pp 123-130 | Cite as

Evaluating Raft in Docker on Kubernetes

  • Caio Oliveira
  • Lau Cheuk Lung
  • Hylson Netto
  • Luciana Rech
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 539)

Abstract

In computing systems, some applications require high availability. The creation of copies improves availability, but keeping the copies synchronized requires the replication of the application state. Raft is a consensus algorithm that emerged with an easy understanding logic and a consequently well accepted solution. At infrastructure level, containers offer an alternative for replacing traditional virtual machines in cloud providers. This paper (This project was supported by CNPq proc. 401364/2014-3) evaluates the execution of Raft in physical machines and in Kubernetes, a container management system developed by Google and other companies. Results show similar performance for Raft in both environments.

Keywords

Raft Performance Kubernetes Docker Containers 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Bernstein, D.: Containers and cloud: from lxc to docker to kuber-netes. IEEE Cloud Comput. 1(3), 81–84 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    CoreOS. etcd (2016). https://coreos.com/etcd. Accessed 12 May 2016
  3. 3.
    Felter, W., et al.: An updated performance comparison of virtual machines, Linux containers. In: International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software, pp. 171–172. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    GitHub. Raft (2016). http://raft.github.io. Accessed 12 May 2016
  5. 5.
    Howard, H., et al.: Raft refloated: do we have consensus? ACM SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 49(1), 12–21 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lamport, L.: The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16(2), 133–169 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mell, P., Grance, T.: The NIST definition of cloud computing. Technical report Spp. 800–145. Gaithersburg, MD, United States: National Institute of Standards & Technology (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moraru, I., Andersen, D.G., Kaminsky, M.: There is more consensus in egalitarian parliaments. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 358–372. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ongaro, D.: Consensus: bridging theory and practice. Ph.D. thesis. Stanford University (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ongaro, D., Ousterhout, J.: In search of an understandable consensus algorithm. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pp. 305–320 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peinl, R., Holzschuher, F., Pfitzer, F.: Docker cluster management for the cloud - survey results, own solution. J. Grid Comput. 14, 1–18 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Popek, G.J., Goldberg, R.P.: Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures. Commun. ACM 17(7), 412–421 (1974). ISSN:0001–0782MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schneider, F.B.: Implementing fault-tolerant services using the state machine approach: a tutorial. ACM Comput. Surv. 22(4), 299–319 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sill, A.: Emerging standards, organizational Patterns in cloud computing. IEEE Cloud Comput. 2(4), 72–76 (2015). ISSN:2325–6095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toffetti, G., et al.: An architecture for self-managing microservices. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Automated Incident Management in Cloud, pp. 19–24. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verma, A., et al.: Large-scale cluster management at Google with Borg. In: European Conference on Computer Systems, p. 18. ACM (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caio Oliveira
    • 1
  • Lau Cheuk Lung
    • 1
  • Hylson Netto
    • 1
  • Luciana Rech
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal de Santa CatarinaFlorianopolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations