MulTe: A Multi-Tenancy Database Benchmark Framework

  • Tim Kiefer
  • Benjamin Schlegel
  • Wolfgang Lehner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7755)

Abstract

Multi-tenancy in relational databases has been a topic of interest for a couple of years. On the one hand, ever increasing capabilities and capacities of modern hardware easily allow for multiple database applications to share one system. On the other hand, cloud computing leads to outsourcing of many applications to service architectures, which in turn leads to offerings for relational databases in the cloud, as well.

The ability to benchmark multi-tenancy database systems (MT-DBMSs) is imperative to evaluate and compare systems and helps to reveal otherwise unnoticed shortcomings. With several tenants sharing a MT-DBMS, a benchmark is considerably different compared to classic database benchmarks and calls for new benchmarking methods and performance metrics. Unfortunately, there is no single, well-accepted multi-tenancy benchmark for MT-DBMSs available and few efforts have been made regarding the methodology and general tooling of the process.

We propose a method to benchmark MT-DBMSs and provide a framework for building such benchmarks. To support the cumbersome process of defining and generating tenants, loading and querying their data, and analyzing the results we propose and provide MulTe, an open-source framework that helps with all these steps.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Microsoft: Microsoft Windows Azure (2012), http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/
  2. 2.
    Amazon: Amazon Relational Database Service (2012), http://aws.amazon.com/rds/
  3. 3.
    TPC: Transaction Processing Performance Council (2012), http://www.tpc.org/
  4. 4.
    TPoX: Transaction Processing over XML (TPoX) (2012), http://tpox.sourceforge.net/
  5. 5.
    Sethuraman, P., Reza Taheri, H.: TPC-V: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Performance of Database Applications in Virtual Environments. In: Nambiar, R., Poess, M. (eds.) TPCTC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6417, pp. 121–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobs, D., Aulbach, S.: Ruminations on Multi-Tenant Databases. In: Fachtagung für Datenbanksysteme in Business, Technologie und Web - BTW 2007, Aachen, Germany, pp. 5–9 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiefer, T., Lehner, W.: Private Table Database Virtualization for DBaaS. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing - UCC 2011, vol. 1, pp. 328–329. IEEE, Melbourne (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soror, A.A., Minhas, U.F., Aboulnaga, A., Salem, K., Kokosielis, P., Kamath, S.: Automatic Virtual Machine Configuration for Database Workloads. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 35(1), 1–47 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aulbach, S., Grust, T., Jacobs, D., Kemper, A., Rittinger, J.: Multi-Tenant Databases for Software as a Service: Schema-Mapping techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data - SIGMOD 2008, pp. 1195–1206. ACM, Vancouver (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curino, C., Jones, E.P., Madden, S., Balakrishnan, H.: Workload-Aware Database Monitoring and Consolidation. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data - SIGMOD 2011, pp. 313–324. ACM, Athens (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Kiefer
    • 1
  • Benjamin Schlegel
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Lehner
    • 1
  1. 1.Database Technology GroupDresden University of TechnologyDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations