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

skip to main content
10.1145/2391229.2391243acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Cake: enabling high-level SLOs on shared storage systems

Published: 14 October 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Cake is a coordinated, multi-resource scheduler for shared distributed storage environments with the goal of achieving both high throughput and bounded latency. Cake uses a two-level scheduling scheme to enforce high-level service-level objectives (SLOs). First-level schedulers control consumption of resources such as disk and CPU. These schedulers (1) provide mechanisms for differentiated scheduling, (2) split large requests into smaller chunks, and (3) limit the number of outstanding device requests, which together allow for effective control over multi-resource consumption within the storage system. Cake's second-level scheduler coordinates the first-level schedulers to map high-level SLO requirements into actual scheduling parameters. These parameters are dynamically adjusted over time to enforce high-level performance specifications for changing workloads. We evaluate Cake using multiple workloads derived from real-world traces. Our results show that Cake allows application programmers to explore the latency vs. throughput trade-off by setting different high-level performance requirements on their workloads. Furthermore, we show that using Cake has concrete economic and business advantages, reducing provisioning costs by up to 50% for a consolidated workload and reducing the completion time of an analytics cycle by up to 40%.

References

[1]
Hadoop distributed file system. http://hadoop.apache.org/hdfs.
[2]
Hbase. http://hbase.apache.org.
[3]
The Apache Cassandra Project. http://cassandra.apache.org/.
[4]
J. Appavoo, A. Waterland, D. Da Silva, V. Uhlig, B. Rosenburg, E. Van Hensbergen, J. Stoess, R. Wisniewski, and U. Steinberg. Providing a cloud network infrastructure on a supercomputer. In HPDC '10, Chicago, IL.
[5]
M. Armbrust, A. Fox, D. A. Patterson, N. Lanham, B. Trushkowsky, J. Trutna, and H. Oh. SCADS: Scale-Independent Storage for Social Computing Applications. In CIDR, Asilomar, CA, 2009.
[6]
L. A. Barroso. Warehouse-Scale Computing: Entering the Teenage Decade. In ISCA '11, San Jose, USA.
[7]
D. Borthakur, J. Gray, J. S. Sarma, K. Muthukkaruppan, N. Spiegelberg, H. Kuang, K. Ranganathan, D. Molkov, A. Menon, S. Rash, R. Schmidt, and A. Aiyer. Apache Hadoop goes Realtime at Facebook. In SIGMOD '11, Athens, Greece.
[8]
L. S. Brakmo and L. L. Peterson. TCP Vegas: End to End congestion avoidance on a global Internet. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 13(8): 1465--1480, Oct. 1995.
[9]
J. Bruno, J. Brustoloni, E. Gabber, B. Ozden, and A. Silberschatz. Disk Scheduling with Quality of Service Guarantees. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing an Systems (ICMCS '99), pages 400--405, 1999.
[10]
D. D. Chambliss, G. A. Alvarez, P. Pandey, D. Jadav, J. Xu, R. Menon, and T. P. Lee. Performance virtualization for large-scale storage systems. In 22th International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS03), pages 109--118, 2003.
[11]
F. Chang, J. Dean, S. Ghemawat, W. Hsieh, D. Wallach, M. Burrows, T. Chandra, A. Fikes, and R. Gruber. Bigtable: A distributed storage system for structured data. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 26(2): 4, 2008.
[12]
B. Cooper, R. Ramakrishnan, U. Srivastava, A. Silberstein, P. Bohannon, H. Jacobsen, N. Puz, D. Weaver, and R. Yerneni. PNUTS: Yahoo!'s hosted data serving platform. In VLDB 2008, Auckland, NZ.
[13]
J. Dean and L. Barroso. http://research.google.com/people/jeff/latency.html, March 26, 2012.
[14]
A. Ferguson, P. Bodik, S. Kandula, E. Boutin, and R. Fonseca. Jockey: Guaranteed Job Latency in Data Parallel Clusters. In EuroSys '12, Bern, Switzerland.
[15]
G. Ananthanarayanan, A. Ghodsi, A. Wang, S. Shenker, I. Stoica. PACMan: Coordinated Memory Caching for Parallel Jobs. In NSDI '12, San Jose, CA, 2012.
[16]
A. Ganapathi, Y. Chen, A. Fox, R. H. Katz, and D. A. Patterson. Statistics-driven workload modeling for the cloud. In ICDE '10, Long Beach, CA.
[17]
G. Ganger, J. Strunk, and A. Klosterman. Self-* storage: Brick-based storage with automated administration. Technical Report CMU-CS-03-178, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003.
[18]
A. Ghodsi, V. Sekar, M. Zaharia, and I. Stoica. Multi-resource fair queuing for packet processing. In SIGCOMM'12, Helsinki, Finland, 2012.
[19]
A. Ghodsi, M. Zaharia, B. Hindman, A. Konwinski, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. Dominant resource fairness: fair allocation of multiple resource types. In NSDI'11, Boston, MA, 2011.
[20]
P. Goyal, H. Vin, and H. Cheng. Start-time fair queueing: A Scheduling Algorithm for Integrated services Packet Switching Networks. Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on, 5(5): 690--704, Oct 1997.
[21]
A. Gulati, I. Ahmad, and C. Waldspurger. PARDA: Proportional allocation of resources for distributed storage access. In FAST'09, pages 85--98, San Jose, CA, 2009.
[22]
A. Gulati, C. Kumar, I. Ahmad, and K. Kumar. BASIL: Automated IO load balancing across storage devices. In FAST '10, San Jose.
[23]
A. Gulati, A. Merchant, and P. Varman. mClock: Handling Throughput Variability for Hypervisor IO Scheduling. In OSDI '10, Vancouver, Canada.
[24]
J. Hamilton. The cost of latency. http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/10/31/TheCostOfLatency.aspx.
[25]
Y. Izrailevsky. NoSQL at Netflix. http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/nosql-at-netflix.html.
[26]
V. Jacobson. Congestion avoidance and control. SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 25(1): 157--187, Jan. 1995.
[27]
C. R. Lumb, A. Merchant, and G. A. Alvarez. Facade: Virtual storage devices with performance guarantees. In FAST'03, pages 131--144, San Francisco, CA, 2003.
[28]
H. V. Madhyastha, J. C. McCullough, G. Porter, R. Kapoor, S. Savage, A. C. Snoeren, and A. Vahdat. scc: Cluster Storage Provisining Informed by Application Characteristics and SLAs. In FAST'12, San Jose, USA.
[29]
A. Merchant, M. Uysal, P. Padala, X. Zhu, S. Singhal, and K. Shin. Maestro: Quality-of-Service in Large Disk Arrays. In ICAC '11, pages 245--254, Karlsruhe, Germany.
[30]
M. P. Mesnier and J. B. Akers. Differentiated storage services. SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 45(1): 45--53, Feb. 2011.
[31]
P. Padala, K. G. Shin, X. Zhu, M. Uysal, Z. Wang, S. Singhal, A. Merchant, and K. Salem. Adaptive control of virtualized resources in utility computing environments. In EuroSys '07, pages 289--302, Lisbon, Portugal, 2007.
[32]
E. Schurman and J. Brutlag. The user and business impact of server delays, additional bytes, and http chunking in web search, 2009.
[33]
P. J. Shenoy and H. M. Vin. Cello: A disk scheduling framework for next generation operating systems. In ACM SIGMETRICS 1997, pages 44--55.
[34]
G. Soundararajan and C. Amza. Towards End-to-End Quality of Service: Controlling I/O Interference in Shared Storage Servers. In Middleware 2008, volume 5346, pages 287--305.
[35]
G. Soundararajan, D. Lupei, S. Ghanbari, A. D. Popescu, J. Chen, and C. Amza. Dynamic resource allocation for database servers running on virtual storage. In FAST '09, pages 71--84, San Francisco, California, 2009.
[36]
B. Trushkowsky, P. Bodik, A. Fox, M. Franklin, M. Jordan, and D. Patterson. The SCADS Director: Scaling a distributed storage system under stringent performance requirements. In FAST 2011, pages 163--176.
[37]
M. Wachs, M. Abd-El-Malek, E. Thereska, and G. R. Ganger. Argon: performance insulation for shared storage servers. In FAST '07, San Jose, CA, 2007.
[38]
C. A. Waldspurger. Lottery and Stride Scheduling: Flexible Proportional-Share Resource Management. Technical Report MIT-LCS-TR-667, MIT, Laboratory for Computer Science, 1995.
[39]
A. Wang, S. Venkataraman, S. Alspaugh, I. Stoica, and R. Katz. Sweet storage SLOs with Frosting. In HotCloud 2012, Boston, MA.
[40]
C. Wilson, H. Ballani, T. Karagiannis, and A. Rowtron. Better never than late: meeting deadlines in datacenter networks. In ACM SIGCOMM 2011, pages 50--61.
[41]
D. Zats, T. Das, P. Mohan, D. Borthakur, and R. Katz. DeTail: reducing the flow completion time tail in datacenter networks. In ACM SIGCOMM 2012, pages 139--150, Helsinki, Finland.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)zQoS: Unleashing full performance capabilities of NVMe SSDs while enforcing SLOs in distributed storage systemsProceedings of the 53rd International Conference on Parallel Processing10.1145/3673038.3673156(618-628)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
  • (2024)BTQoS: A Tenant Relationship-Aware QoS Framework for Multi-tenant Distributed Storage SystemWeb and Big Data10.1007/978-981-97-7241-4_16(245-260)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2024
  • (2023)Tail Prediction for Heterogeneous Data Center ClustersProcesses10.3390/pr1102040711:2(407)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Cake: enabling high-level SLOs on shared storage systems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SoCC '12: Proceedings of the Third ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing
    October 2012
    325 pages
    ISBN:9781450317610
    DOI:10.1145/2391229
    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]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 14 October 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. consolidation
    2. service-level objectives
    3. storage systems
    4. two-level scheduling

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    SOCC '12
    Sponsor:
    SOCC '12: ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing
    October 14 - 17, 2012
    California, San Jose

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 169 of 722 submissions, 23%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)32
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)zQoS: Unleashing full performance capabilities of NVMe SSDs while enforcing SLOs in distributed storage systemsProceedings of the 53rd International Conference on Parallel Processing10.1145/3673038.3673156(618-628)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
    • (2024)BTQoS: A Tenant Relationship-Aware QoS Framework for Multi-tenant Distributed Storage SystemWeb and Big Data10.1007/978-981-97-7241-4_16(245-260)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2024
    • (2023)Tail Prediction for Heterogeneous Data Center ClustersProcesses10.3390/pr1102040711:2(407)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2023
    • (2023)TailGuard: Tail Latency SLO Guaranteed Task Scheduling for Data-Intensive User-Facing Applications2023 IEEE 43rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS)10.1109/ICDCS57875.2023.00042(898-909)Online publication date: Jul-2023
    • (2022)Asymmetry-aware scalable lockingProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming10.1145/3503221.3508420(294-308)Online publication date: 2-Apr-2022
    • (2022)QWin: Core Allocation for Enforcing Differentiated Tail Latency SLOs at Shared Storage Backend2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS)10.1109/ICDCS54860.2022.00109(1098-1109)Online publication date: Jul-2022
    • (2022)High fusion computers: The IoTs, edges, data centers, and humans-in-the-loop as a computerBenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations10.1016/j.tbench.2022.1000752:3(100075)Online publication date: Jul-2022
    • (2021)Nova-LSM: A Distributed, Component-based LSM-tree Key-value StoreProceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data10.1145/3448016.3457297(749-763)Online publication date: 9-Jun-2021
    • (2021)The Case for Storage Optimization Decoupling in Deep Learning Frameworks2021 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER)10.1109/Cluster48925.2021.00096(649-656)Online publication date: Sep-2021
    • (2020)A Survey and Classification of Software-Defined Storage SystemsACM Computing Surveys10.1145/338589653:3(1-38)Online publication date: 28-May-2020
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    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