Cost of Virtual Machine Live Migration in Clouds: A Performance Evaluation

  • William Voorsluys
  • James Broberg
  • Srikumar Venugopal
  • Rajkumar Buyya
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5931)


Virtualization has become commonplace in modern data centers, often referred as “computing clouds”. The capability of virtual machine live migration brings benefits such as improved performance, manageability and fault tolerance, while allowing workload movement with a short service downtime. However, service levels of applications are likely to be negatively affected during a live migration. For this reason, a better understanding of its effects on system performance is desirable. In this paper, we evaluate the effects of live migration of virtual machines on the performance of applications running inside Xen VMs. Results show that, in most cases, migration overhead is acceptable but cannot be disregarded, especially in systems where availability and responsiveness are governed by strict Service Level Agreements. Despite that, there is a high potential for live migration applicability in data centers serving modern Internet applications. Our results are based on a workload covering the domain of multi-tier Web 2.0 applications.


Virtual machines performance evaluation migration Xen 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barham, P., Dragovic, B., Fraser, K., Hand, S., Harris, T., Ho, A., Neugebauer, R., Pratt, I., Warfield, A.: Xen and the art of virtualization. In: SOSP 2003: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 164–177. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., Brandic, I.: Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Computer Systems 25(6), 599–616 (2009)CrossRefGoogle 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: NSDI 2005: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation, pp. 273–286. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Milojicic, D., Douglis, F., Paindaveine, Y., Wheeler, R., Zhou, S.: Process migration survey. ACM Computing Surveys 32(3), 241–299 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nagarajan, A.B., Mueller, F., Engelmann, C., Scott, S.L.: Proactive fault tolerance for HPC with xen virtualization. In: ICS 2007: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Supercomputing, pp. 23–32. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barbosa, A.C., Sauve, J., Cirne, W., Carelli, M.: Evaluating architectures for independently auditing service level agreements. Future Generation Computer Systems 22(7), 721–731 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iyer, R., Illikkal, R., Zhao, L., Makineni, S., Newell, D., Moses, J., Apparao, P.: Datacenter-on-chip architectures: Tera-scale opportunities and challenges. Intel. Technology Journal 11(03) (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uhlig, R., Neiger, G., Rodgers, D., Santoni, A.L., Martins, F.C.M., Anderson, A.V., Bennett, S.M., Kagi, A., Leung, F.H., Smith, L.: Intel. virtualization technology. Computer 38(5), 48–56 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cherkasova, L., Gardner, R.: Measuring CPU overhead for I/O processing in the Xen virtual machine monitor. In: ATEC 2005: Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, p. 24. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Apparao, P., Iyer, R., Zhang, X., Newell, D., Adelmeyer, T.: Characterization & analysis of a server consolidation benchmark. In: VEE 2008: Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS Iinternational Conference on Virtual Execution Environments, pp. 21–30. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Casazza, J.P., Greenfield, M., Shi, K.: Redefining server performance characterization for virtualization benchmarking. Intel. Technology Journal 10(3), 243–251 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhao, M., Figueiredo, R.J.: Experimental study of virtual machine migration in support of reservation of cluster resources. In: VTDC 2007: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Virtualization Technology in Distributed Computing, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Travostino, F., Daspit, P., Gommans, L., Jog, C., de Laat, C., Mambretti, J., Monga, I., van Oudenaarde, B., Raghunath, S., Wang, P.Y.: Seamless live migration of virtual machines over the man/wan. Future Generation Computer Systems 22(8), 901–907 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sobel, W., Subramanyam, S., Sucharitakul, A., Nguyen, J., Wong, H., Patil, S., Fox, A., Patterson, D.: Cloudstone: Multi-platform, multi-language benchmark and measurement tools for web 2.0. In: CCA 2008: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Cloud Computing (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Apache Software Foundation: Olio,
  16. 16.
    Sun Microsystems: Project Faban,
  17. 17.
    Amazon Web Services LLC: Amazon Web Services,
  18. 18.
    Subramanyam, S., Smith, R., van den Bogaard, P., Zhang, A.: Deploying web 2.0 applications on sun servers and the opensolaris operating system. Technical report, Sun Microsystems (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Voorsluys
    • 1
  • James Broberg
    • 1
  • Srikumar Venugopal
    • 2
  • Rajkumar Buyya
    • 1
  1. 1.Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS) Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Software EngineeringThe University of MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations