Advertisement

Experimental Evaluation of OpenVZ from a Testbed Deployment Perspective

  • Gautam Bhanage
  • Ivan Seskar
  • Yanyong Zhang
  • Dipankar Raychaudhuri
  • Shweta Jain
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 46)

Abstract

A scalable approach to building large scale experimentation testbeds involves multiplexing the system resources for better utilization. Virtualization provides a convenient means of sharing testbed resources among experimenters. The degree of programmability and isolation achieved with such a setup is largely dependent on the type of technology used for virtualization. We consider OpenVZ and User Mode Linux (UML) for virtualization of the ORBIT wireless testbed and evaluate their relative merit. Our results show that OpenVZ, an operating system level virtualization mechanism significantly outperforms UML in terms of system overheads and performance isolation. We discuss both qualitative and quantitative performance features which could serve as guidelines for selection of a virtualization scheme for similar testbeds.

Keywords

Packet Size Cross Coupling Channel Rate Virtualization Platform Host Operating System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    GENI design principle, http://www.geni.net/
  2. 2.
    Kernel virtual machines, http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page
  3. 3.
    Madwifi driver, http://www.madwifi.org/
  4. 4.
    OpenVZ instruction manual, http://wiki.openvz.org/
  5. 5.
    Tcp/udp traffic generation tool, http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/
  6. 6.
    A user-mode port of the kernel, http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/
  7. 7.
    VINI, a virtual network infrastructure, http://www.vini-veritas.net/
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Bavier, A., Feamster, N., Huang, M., Peterson, L., Rexford, J.: vini veritas: realistic and controlled network experimentation. In: Proceedings of SIGCOMM, pp. 3–14. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhanage, G., Mahindra, R., Seskar, I., Raychaudhuri, D.: Implication of MAC frame aggregation on empirical wireless experimentation. In: IEEE Globecom 2009 Wireless Networking Symposium, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (November 2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V., Chaudhary, M.C., Walters, J.P., Guercio, S., Gallo, S.: A comparison of virtualization technologies for hpc. In: Proceedings of AINA (March 2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raychaudhuri, D., Seskar, I., Ott, M., Ganu, S., Ramachandran, K., Kremo, H., Siracusa, R., Liu, H., Singh, M.: Overview of the ORBIT radio grid testbed for evaluation of next-generation wireless network protocols. In: WCNC (March 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kohler, E., Morris, R., Chen, B., Jannotti, J., Kaashoek, M.F.: The click modular router. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 18(3) (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Hibler, R. Ricci, L. Stoller, J. Duerig, S. Guruprasad, T. Stacky, K. Webby, J. Lepreau. Large-scale Virtualization in the Emulab Network Testbed. In: Proceedings of USENIX (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maier, S., Herrscher, D., Rothermel, K.: On node virtualization for scalable network emulation. In: Proceedings of SPECTS, Philadelphia, PA (July 2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barham, P., Dragovic, B., Fraser, K., Hand, S., Harris, T., Ho, A., Neugebauer, R., Pratt, I., Warbeld, A.: Xen and the Art of Virtualization. In. In: Proc. of the 19th ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP) (October 2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peterson, L., Muir, S., Roscoe, T., Klingaman, A.: PlanetLab Architecture: An Overview. Technical Report PDN–06–031, PlanetLab Consortium (May 2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quetier, B., Neri, V., Cappello, F.: Selecting a virtualization system for grid/p2p large scale emulation. In: Proceedings of EXPGRID Workshop (June 2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paul, S., Seshan, S.: Virtualization and Slicing of Wireless Networks. Technical Report GENI Design Document GENI Wireless Working Group, pp. 6–17 (September 2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singhal, S., Hadjichristofi, G., Seskar, I., Raychaudhuri, D.: Evaluation of UML based wireless network virtualization. In: Proceedings of NGI, Poland (March 2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gregory, S., Anmol, C., Arunesh, M., Suman, B.: Wireless virtualization on commodity 802.11 hardware. In: Proceedings of Wintech, pp. 75–82. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soltesz, S., Pötzl, H., Fiuczynski, M.E., Bavier, A., Peterson, L.: Container-based operating system virtualization: a scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 41(3), 275–287 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    White, B., Lepreau, J., Stoller, L., Ricci, R., Guruprasad, S., Newbold, M., Hibler, M., Barb, C., Joglekar, A.: An integrated experimental environment for distributed systems and networks. In: OSDI 2002, Boston (December 2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gautam Bhanage
    • 1
  • Ivan Seskar
    • 1
  • Yanyong Zhang
    • 1
  • Dipankar Raychaudhuri
    • 1
  • Shweta Jain
    • 1
  1. 1.WINLABRutgers UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations