Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Bandwidth Measurements within the Cloud: Characterizing Regular Behaviors and Correlating Downtimes

Published: 18 August 2017 Publication History

Abstract

The search for availability, reliability, and quality of service has led cloud infrastructure customers to disseminate their services, contents, and data over multiple cloud data centers, often involving several Cloud service providers (CSPs). The consequence of this is that a large amount of data must be transmitted across the public Cloud. However, little is known about the bandwidth dynamics involved. To address this, we have conducted a measurement campaign for bandwidth between 18 data centers of four major CSPs. This extensive campaign allowed us to characterize the resulting time series of bandwidth as the addition of a stationary component and some infrequent excursions (typically downtimes). While the former provides a description of the bandwidth users can expect in the Cloud, the latter is closely related to the robustness of the Cloud (i.e., the occurrence of downtimes is correlated). Both components have been studied further by applying factor analysis, specifically analysis of variance, as a mechanism to formally compare data centers’ behaviors and extract generalities. The results show that the stationary process is closely related to the data center locations and CSPs involved in transfers that, fortunately, make the Cloud more predictable and allow the set of reported measurements to be extrapolated. On the other hand, although correlation in the Cloud is low, that is, only 10% of the measured pair of paths showed some correlation, we found evidence that such correlation depends on the particular relationships between pairs of data centers with little connection to more general factors. Positively, this implies that data centers either in the same area or within the same CSP do not show qualitatively more correlation than other data centers, which eases the deployment of robust infrastructures. On the downside, this metric is scarcely generalizable and, consequently, calls for exhaustive monitoring.

References

[1]
Imad Abdeljaouad, Hicham Rachidi, Sherwin Fernandes, and Ahmed Karmouch. 2010. Performance analysis of modern TCP variants: A comparison of Cubic, Compound and New Reno. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Communications. 80--83.
[2]
Giuseppe Aceto, Alessio Botta, Walter de Donato, and Antonio Pescapé. 2013. Cloud monitoring: A survey. Comput. Netw. 57, 9 (2013), 2093--2115.
[3]
Sharad Agarwal, John Dunagan, Navendu Jain, Stefan Saroiu, Alec Wolman, and Harbinder Bhogan. 2010. Volley: Automated data placement for geo-distributed cloud services. In Proceedings of the USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. 17--32.
[4]
Alexa. 2016. Top Sites in the Cloud. Retrieved from http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/Computers/Internet/Cloud_Computing.
[5]
Ignacio Bermudez, Stefano Traverso, Marco Mellia, and Mauricio Munafò. 2013. Exploring the cloud from passive measurements: The Amazon AWS case. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’13). 230--234.
[6]
Adrian W. Bowman and Adelchi Azzalini. 1997. Applied Smoothing Techniques for Data Analysis. Oxford University Press.
[7]
Rodrigo N. Calheiros, Rajiv Ranjan, Anton Beloglazov, César A. F. De Rose, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2011. CloudSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Softw.: Pract. Exper. 41, 1 (2011), 23--50.
[8]
James C. Corbett, Jeffrey Dean, Michael Epstein, Andrew Fikes, Christopher Frost, and others. 2012. Spanner: Google’s globally-distributed database. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. 251--264.
[9]
Mark Crovella and Balachander Krishnamurthy. 2006. Internet Measurement: Infrastructure, Traffic and Applications. John Wiley 8 Sons Inc.
[10]
Olive Jean Dunn and Virginia A. Clark. 1974. Applied Statistics: Analysis of Variance and Regression. John Wiley 8 Sons Inc.
[11]
Yuan Feng, Baochun Li, and Bo Li. 2012. Jetway: Minimizing costs on inter-datacenter video traffic. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Multimedia. 259--268.
[12]
Sally Floyd and Vern Paxson. 2001. Difficulties in simulating the Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 9, 4 (2001), 392--403.
[13]
Forrester Research. 2016. The Future of data center wide-area networking. Retrieved from http://www.forrester.com.
[14]
José L. García-Dorado. 2015. Bandwidth in the Cloud. arXiv. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01129
[15]
José L. García-Dorado, José A. Hernández, Javier Aracil, Jorge E. López de Vergara, and Sergio Lopez-Buedo. 2011. Characterization of the busy-hour traffic of IP networks based on their intrinsic features. Comput. Netw. 55, 9 (2011), 2111--2125.
[16]
José L. García-Dorado and Sanjay G. Rao. 2015. Cost-aware multi data-center bulk transfers in the Cloud from a customer-side perspective. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. (2015).
[17]
Gene V. Glass, Percy D. Peckham, and James R. Sanders. 1972. Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analysis of variance and covariance. Rev. Educ. Res. 42, 3 (1972), 237--288.
[18]
Mohammad Hajjat, Ruiqi Liu, Yiyang Chang, T. S. Eugene Ng, and Sanjay G. Rao. 2015. Application-specific configuration selection in the cloud: Impact of provider policy and potential of systematic testing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’15). 873--881.
[19]
High Scalability. 2016. Latency is everywhere and it costs you sales—How to crush it. Retrieved from http://highscalability.com/latency-everywhere-and-it-costs-you-sales-how-crush-it/.
[20]
Manish Jain and Constantinos Dovrolis. 2002. End-to-end available bandwidth: Measurement methodology, dynamics, and relation with TCP throughput. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication (SIGCOMM’02). 295--308.
[21]
Avinash Lakshman and Prashant Malik. 2010. Cassandra: A decentralized structured storage system. SIGOPS Operat. Syst. Rev. 44, 2 (2010), 35--40.
[22]
Nikolaos Laoutaris, Michael Sirivianos, Xiaoyuan Yang, and Pablo Rodriguez. 2011. Inter-datacenter bulk transfers with NetStitcher. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication (SIGCOMM’11). 74--85.
[23]
Sung-Ju Lee, Puneet Sharma, Sujata Banerjee, Sujoy Basu, and Rodrigo Fonseca. 2005. Measuring bandwidth between planetlab nodes. In Proceedings of the Passive and Active Network Measurement Conference. 292--305.
[24]
Philipp Leitner and Jürgen Cito. 2016. Patterns in the chaos--A study of performance variation and predictability in public IaaS clouds. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 16, 3 (2016), 15:1--15:23.
[25]
Ang Li, Xiaowei Yang, Srikanth Kandula, and Ming Zhang. 2010. CloudCmp: Comparing public cloud providers. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Internet Measurement. 1--14.
[26]
Felipe Mata, Piotr Żuraniewski, Michel Mandjes, and Marco Mellia. 2014. Anomaly detection in diurnal data. Comput. Netw. 60 (2014), 187--200.
[27]
Norman H. Nie, Dale H. Bent, and C. Hadlai Hull. 1975. SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Vol. 227. McGraw-Hill.
[28]
Valerio Persico, Alessio Botta, Pietro Marchetta, and Antonio Pescapé. 2017. On the performance of the wide-area networks interconnecting public-cloud datacenters around the globe. Comput. Netw. 112, C (2017), 67--83.
[29]
Valerio Persico, Pietro Marchetta, Alessio Botta, and Antonio Pescapé. 2015a. Measuring network throughput in the cloud: The case of Amazon EC2. Comput. Netw. 93, 3 (2015), 408--422.
[30]
Valerio Persico, Pietro Marchetta, Alessio Botta, and Antonio Pescapé. 2015b. On network throughput variability in Microsoft Azure cloud. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM’15). 1--6.
[31]
Valerio Persico, Pietro Marchetta, Alessio Botta, and Antonio Pescapé. 2016. A first look at public-cloud inter-datacenter network performance. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM’16). 1--7.
[32]
Ingmar Poese, Steve Uhlig, Mohamed Ali Kaafar, Benoit Donnet, and Bamba Gueye. 2011. IP geolocation databases: Unreliable? ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41, 2 (2011), 53--56.
[33]
Joel Scheuner, Jürgen Cito, Philipp Leitner, and Harald Gall. 2015. Cloud workbench: Benchmarking IaaS providers based on infrastructure-as-code. In Proceedings of the IW3C2 Conference on World Wide Web. 239--242.
[34]
P. N. Shankaranarayanan, Ashiwan Sivakumar, Sanjay G. Rao, and Mohit Tawarmalani. 2014. Performance sensitive replication in geo-distributed cloud datastores. In Proceedings of the IEEE/IFIP Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks. 240--251.
[35]
Ajay Tirumala, Mark Gates, Feng Qin, Jon Dugan, and Jim Ferguson. 2016. iPerf--The TCP/UDP bandwidth measurement tool. Retrieved from https://github.com/esnet/iperf. (2016).
[36]
Remco van de Meent, Michel Mandjes, and Aiko Pras. 2006. Gaussian traffic everywhere? In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’06). 573--578.
[37]
Edward Walker. 2008. Benchmarking Amazon EC2 for high-performance scientific computing. Login: The Magazine of USENIX 8 SAGE 33, 5 (2008), 18--23.
[38]
Guohui Wang and T. S. Eugene Ng. 2010. The impact of virtualization on network performance of Amazon EC2 data center. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’10). 1--9.
[39]
Timothy Wood, K. K. Ramakrishnan, Prashant Shenoy, and Jacobus van der Merwe. 2011. CloudNet: Dynamic pooling of cloud resources by live WAN migration of virtual machines. ACM SIGPLAN Not. 46, 7 (2011), 121--132.
[40]
Zhe Wu, Michael Butkiewicz, Dorian Perkins, Ethan Katz-Bassett, and Harsha V. Madhyastha. 2013. SPANStore: Cost-effective geo-replicated storage spanning multiple cloud services. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 292--308.
[41]
Zhe Wu and Harsha V. Madhyastha. 2013. Understanding the latency benefits of multi-cloud webservice deployments. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 43, 2 (2013), 13--20.
[42]
Rostyslav Zabolotnyi, Philipp Leitner, Waldemar Hummer, and Schahram Dustdar. 2015. JCloudScale: Closing the gap between IaaS and PaaS. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 15, 3 (2015), 10:1--10:20.
[43]
Eyal Zohar, Israel Cidon, and Osnat (Ossi) Mokryn. 2011. The power of prediction: Cloud bandwidth and cost reduction. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication (SIGCOMM’11). 86--97.

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Towards the Automatic and Schedule-Aware Alerting of Internetwork Time SeriesIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.30735989(61346-61358)Online publication date: 2021
  • (2020)On the dynamics of valley times and its application to bulk-transfer schedulingComputer Communications10.1016/j.comcom.2020.09.015164(124-137)Online publication date: Dec-2020
  • (2019)A Unified Model for the Mobile-Edge-Cloud ContinuumACM Transactions on Internet Technology10.1145/322664419:2(1-21)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Bandwidth Measurements within the Cloud: Characterizing Regular Behaviors and Correlating Downtimes

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
    ACM Transactions on Internet Technology  Volume 17, Issue 4
    Special Issue on Provenance of Online Data and Regular Papers
    November 2017
    165 pages
    ISSN:1533-5399
    EISSN:1557-6051
    DOI:10.1145/3133307
    • Editor:
    • Munindar P. Singh
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 18 August 2017
    Accepted: 01 May 2017
    Revised: 01 January 2017
    Received: 01 October 2016
    Published in TOIT Volume 17, Issue 4

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. ANOVA
    2. Public cloud
    3. TCP bandwidth
    4. inter-cloud
    5. traffic correlation

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

    Funding Sources

    • Innovation of the Republic of Ecuador
    • Prometeo project of the Secretariat for Higher Education, Science, Technology
    • UTN-CUICYT-177 project Characterization of Correlated Performance in the Cloud

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2021)Towards the Automatic and Schedule-Aware Alerting of Internetwork Time SeriesIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.30735989(61346-61358)Online publication date: 2021
    • (2020)On the dynamics of valley times and its application to bulk-transfer schedulingComputer Communications10.1016/j.comcom.2020.09.015164(124-137)Online publication date: Dec-2020
    • (2019)A Unified Model for the Mobile-Edge-Cloud ContinuumACM Transactions on Internet Technology10.1145/322664419:2(1-21)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019
    • (2019)Flow-concurrence and bandwidth ratio on the InternetComputer Communications10.1016/j.comcom.2019.01.007Online publication date: Feb-2019

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media