AWAIT: Efficient Overload Management for Busy Multi-tier Web Services under Bursty Workloads

  • Lei Lu
  • Ludmila Cherkasova
  • Vittoria de Nitto Personè
  • Ningfang Mi
  • Evgenia Smirni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6189)

Abstract

The problem of service differentiation and admission control in web services that utilize a multi-tier architecture is more challenging than in a single-tiered one, especially in the presence of bursty conditions, i.e., when arrivals of user web sessions to the system are characterized by temporal surges in their arrival intensities and demands. We demonstrate that classic techniques for a session based admission control that are triggered by threshold violations are ineffective under bursty workload conditions, as user-perceived performance metrics rapidly and dramatically deteriorate, inadvertently leading the system to reject requests from already accepted user sessions, resulting in business loss. Here, as a solution for service differentiation of accepted user sessions we promote a methodology that is based on blocking, i.e., when the system operates in overload, requests from accepted sessions are not rejected but are instead stored in a blocking queue that effectively acts as a waiting room. The requests in the blocking queue implicitly become of higher priority and are served immediately after load subsides. Residence in the blocking queue comes with a performance cost as blocking time adds to the perceived end-to-end user response time. We present a novel autonomic session based admission control policy, called AWAIT, that adaptively adjusts the capacity of the blocking queue as a function of workload burstiness in order to meet predefined user service level objectives while keeping the portion of aborted accepted sessions to a minimum. Detailed simulations illustrate the effectiveness of AWAIT under different workload burstiness profiles and therefore strongly argue for its effectiveness.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelzaher, T., Bhatti, N.: Web content adaptation to improve server overload behavior. Computer Networks 31(11-16) (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdelzaher, T., Shin, K.G., Bhatti, N.: Performance guarantees for Web server end-systems: A control-theoretical approach. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 13(1) (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almeida, J., Dabu, M., Manikutty, A., Cao, P.: Providing differentiated levels of service in Web content hosting. In: Workshop on Internet Server Performance, Madison, WI (June 1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Apache Software Foundation. The Apache Web server, http://www.apache.org
  5. 5.
    Balsamo, S., de Nitto Personè, V., Onvural, R.: Analysis of Queueing Networks with Blocking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartolini, N., Bongiovanni, G., Silvestri, S.: An autonomic admission control policy for distributed web systems. In: Proc. of the Intl. Symp. on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, MASCOTS ’07 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartolini, N., Bongiovanni, G., Silvestri, S.: Self-* overload control for distributed web systems. In: Proc. of the Intl. Workshop on Quality of Service, IWQoS (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhoj, P., Ramanathan, S., Singhal, S.: Web2K: Bringing QoS to Web servers. Technical Report HPL-2000-61, HP Labs (May 2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlstrom, J., Rom, R.: Application aware admission control and scheduling in web servers. In: Proc. of INFOCOM (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chandra, S., Ellis, C., Vahdat, A.: Differentiated multimedia Web services using quality aware transcoding. In: Proc. of INFOCOM (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, X., Mohapatra, P., Chen, H.: An admission control scheme for predictable server response time for Web accesses. In: Proc. of the 10th World Wide Web Conference (WWW), Hong Kong (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cherkasova, L.: Scheduling strategy to improve response time for Web applications. In: Bubak, M., Hertzberger, B., Sloot, P.M.A. (eds.) HPCN-Europe 1998. LNCS, vol. 1401. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cherkasova, L., Phaal, P.: Session-based admission control: A mechanism for peak load management of commercial Web sites. IEEE Transactions on Computers 51(6) (June 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crovella, M., Frangioso, R., Harchol-Balter, M.: Connection scheduling in Web servers. In: Proc. of the USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems, USITS (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eggert, L., Heidemann, J.: Application-level differentiated services for Web servers. World-Wide Web Journal 2(3) (August 1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elnikety, S., Nahum, E., Tracey, J., Zwaenepoel, W.: A method for transparent admission control and request scheduling in e-commerce web sites. In: Proc. of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fox, A., Gribble, S.D., Chawathe, Y., Brewer, E.A., Gauthier, P.: Cluster-based scalable network services. In: Proc. of the 16th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iyer, R., Tewari, V., Kant, K.: Overload control mechanisms for Web servers. In: Workshop on Performance and QoS of Next Generation Networks, Nagoya, Japan (November 2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kanodia, V., Knightly, E.W.: Ensuring latency targets in multiclass Web servers. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 13(10) (October 2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, K., Jamin, S.: A measurement-based admission-controlled Web server. In: Proc of INFOCOM (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu, C., Abdelzaher, T.F., Stankovic, J.A., Son, S.H.: A feedback control approach for guaranteeing relative delays in Web servers. In: IEEE Real-Time Technology and Applications Symposium (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mi, N., Casale, G., Cherkasova, L., Smirni, E.: Burstiness in multi-tier applications: Symptoms, causes, and new models. In: Issarny, V., Schantz, R. (eds.) Middleware 2008. LNCS, vol. 5346, pp. 265–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mi, N., Casale, G., Cherkasova, L., Smirni, E.: Injecting realistic burstiness to a traditional client-server benchmark. In: Proc. of the 6th Intl. Conference on Autonomic Computing, ICAC (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parekh, S., Gandhi, N., Hellerstein, J.L., Tilbury, D., Jayram, T., Bigus, J.: Using control theory to achieve service level objectives in performance management. In: Proc. of the IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perros, H.G.: Queueing networks with blocking. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shen, K., Tang, H., Yang, T., Chu, L.: Integrated resource management for cluster-based Internet services. In: Proc.of Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    TPC-W Benchmark, http://www.tpc.org
  28. 28.
    Voigt, T., Tewari, R., Freimuth, D., Mehra, A.: Kernel mechanisms for service differentiation in overloaded Web servers. In: Proc. of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Voigt, T.: Overload Behaviour and Protection of Event-driven Web Servers. In: Proc. of International Workshop on Web Engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Welsh, M., Culler, D.: Adaptive Overload Control for Busy Internet Servers. In: Proc. of the USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS) (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Welsh, M., Culler, D., Brewer, E.: SEDA: An architecture for well-conditioned, scalable Internet services. In: Proc. of the 18th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lei Lu
    • 1
  • Ludmila Cherkasova
    • 2
  • Vittoria de Nitto Personè
    • 3
  • Ningfang Mi
    • 4
  • Evgenia Smirni
    • 1
  1. 1.College of William and MaryWilliamsburgUSA
  2. 2.Hewlett-Packard LaboratoriesPalo AltoUSA
  3. 3.Universitá degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”RomeItaly
  4. 4.Electrical and Computer EngineeringNortheastern UniversityBoston

Personalised recommendations