DOCSLIB.ORG

Performance Evaluation of Virtual Appliances

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Performance Evaluation of Virtual Appliances Performance Evaluation of Virtual Appliances Zhaoqian Chen and David Kaeli Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Northeastern University, Boston, MA {stchen,kaeli}@ece.neu.edu Kevin Murphy Network Engines Canton, MA [email protected] Abstract VMware ESX [2], along with the development of hardware support for virtualization from Intel [3] and AMD [4], are ac- Virtualization technology has become standard in many celerating the move to deploying virtual machines in produc- computing environments. Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) tion appliances (i.e., virtual appliances). are now using virtual machines to deliver multiple software ap- Virtualization technology has been used effectively for pliances. However, the performance of these appliances when server consolidation and optimization of hardware resources. run on virtualized platforms is not well understood. In this pa- When enterprises deploy virtualization, they also enjoy the per, we present a performance evaluation framework for virtu- benefits of a number of associated features that include: VM alized appliances. We are using the XenServer virtual machine check-pointing, physical to virtual (P2V) migration, data man- system and evaluate its performance on four different classes of agement, and others. They pay less attention to how their appli- workload: 1) voice-over-IP, 2) TCPIP networking, 3) IO disk cations are performing in this virtualized environment. When intensive, and 4) CPU intensive. Our primary interest is under- a virtualized appliance runs on the same platform with other standing the scalability of the VoIP application in the presence virtualized appliances, we need to pay careful attention to the of the otherthree classes of workload. We also considera range associated performance impact. For some near real-time appli- of different virtual machine configurations. cations (e.g., telephony server, game server, etc.), performance Our experiments show that the XenSource VMM can isolate and latency are crucial and must be managed carefully. hardware resource utilization (i.e., disk and network I/O) nicely There are two main approaches to virtualization. Full virtu- across multiple virtual machines. But when running multiple alization allows an unmodified operating system to run on top virtual appliances concurrently, sharing physical CPUs across of a hypervisor without any awareness of the underlying hyper- virtual machines introduces significant overhead. We present visor layer. The hypervisor is a customized operating system the results of this study and consider future work to address layer that provides for virtual machine management. When us- some of these performance issues. ing full virtualization, the execution overhead is typically larger than on systems that use paravirtualization [5]. Paravirtualiza- tion runs a modified operating system that is fully aware of the 1. Introduction hypervisor and cooperates in the virtualization process. The complexity and performance of each virtualization approach Today, virtualization technology plays a critical role in can vary greatly, though full virtualization seems to be gain- many computing enterprises. Virtualization can provide lower ing in popularity in server-class applications. cost of ownership, improved cost/performance, and higher While some commercial studies have compared their sys- performance/watt. Virtualization was first popularized on tems, little has been done by the performance evaluation com- mainframe-class systems, though it recent rise in popularity is munity to analyze the performance and scalability of these en- tied to its ability to share hardware infrastructure across multi- vironments. The main goal of this work is to gain a better un- ple virtual machines run on commodity hardware. derstanding of the overhead associated with virtualization by Server consolidation can help enterprises achieve higher utilizing workloads that place load on different subsystems on system utilization, reduce complexity and total cost. The lead- the virtualized system. We measure a number of performance ing virtualization technology vendors such as Xen [1] and metrics to identify the overhead involved with different virtu- alization configurations on a virtualized version of a software VAs installed and with the VA performance tester/monitor in- appliance. tegrated. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present our profiling framework. Section 3 intro- duces the XenSource virtualization architecture that is used in this paper. Section 4 describes our synthetic workload used. In Section 5, we present performance results. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper and presents directions for future work. 2 Evaluation Framework Our Virtual Appliance (VA) performance evaluation frame- work is shown in Figure 1. The framework consists of two sep- arate systems: 1) the VA tester/monitor and 2) the target plat- form (including the Virtual Appliances and VMM) under test. The VA tester/monitor software contains a VMM level pro- filer, client-based VA workload drivers to drive each VA, and a management user interface (UI). The VMM profiler probes the VMM to provide VM-level information, such as VM sta- tus, virtual/physical CPU utilization, VMM scheduling statis- Figure 2. Integrated VA performance monitor tics, virtual I/O speed, etc. and evaluation. A number of different VA workloads are configured on the target system to act as typical virtual appliances. The VA tester/monitor drives the different VAs with load. We then obtain VMM statistics and compile these back on the VA 3 Implementation tester/monitor system. Using these workloads and the VMM profiler together, we are able to analyze each VA’s performance. We have implemented this framework on a XenServer vir- The management UI is designed to allow the tester/monitor tual machine. The main appliance we are targeting is Aster- system administrator to monitor VA performance performance iskNOW [6], which is a well-known telephony server appli- through a graphical presentation. ance running the SIP protocol. In this section, we describe the platform and appliance being tested. 3.1 The Xen Architecture Xen is a free and open-source virtual machine monitor which allows multiple guest operating system instances to run concurrently on a single physical machine. It supports both para-virtualization and full virtualization. The Xen virtual- ization platform has multiple layers. Figure 3 provides an overview of the Xen architecture. The lowest and most privileged layer is the Xen VMM, which presents a virtual hardware abstraction slightly differ- ent from the underlying hardware. Each guest operating sys- tem (OS) runs on a separate virtual machine (or guest domain in Xen terminology). The domains are scheduled by the Xen Figure 1. VA Performance Evaluation Platforms VMM to make effective use of the available physical CPUs. Each application, running in the guest OS, accesses hardware Our VA test/monitor is presently configured on a sepa- devices via a special privileged virtual machine called Domain- rate system in order to eliminate any overhead. The VA 0 (or IDD, isolated driver domain). This privileged VM owns tester/monitor could be integrated into the platform to reside specific hardware devices and talks to the I/O device drivers. on a privileged VM, as shown in Figure 2. This privileged VM All other guest domains use a simple device driver that com- has full access to the VMM so that our VA tester/monitor is municates with Domain-0’s driver to access real hardware de- still able to profile VMM stats and all other VMs. Thus, fu- vices. Domain-0 can directly access the hardware devices it ture platform vendors will be able to produce a single box with owns. However, a guest domain accesses the hardware de- vices indirectly through a virtual device connected to Domain- 0. Domain-0 maps through bridges and routes each physical interface through page-sized buffers which are transferred over the I/O channel. This helps to avoid copying during execution. Figure 3. Xen Architecture Figure 4. Basic stateful SIP scenario without au- thentication. 3.2 An Overview of the SIP Protocol party XML scripts that define new call flows. SIPp has many The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [7] is an application run-time options, such as multiple transport (UDP/TCP/TLS) layer control protocol for creating, maintaining, and tearing support and MD5-based hash digest authentication. down sessions for various types of media, including voice, video, and text. SIP is growing in importance as it is being used for many media-oriented applications such as Voice-over- 4 Experimental setup IP (VoIP), voicemail, instant messaging, telepresence, IPTV, network gaming, and more. It is also the core protocol for The hardware used in our experiments is an Intel Dual- the IP Multimedia Subsystem, the basis for the 3rd-Generation Core CPU Xeon 3060 that supports Intel VT [3], running at Partnership Program for both fixed and wireless telephone net- 2.4GHz with 4MB L2 Cache and 4GB main memory. We use works. SIP relies on an infrastructure of servers, which are re- XenServer 4.0.1 which is an enterprise version of Xen from sponsible for maintaining the location of users and forwarding Citrix, Inc [9]. XenServer consists of the Xen VMM, man- SIP messages across the application-layer SIP routing infras- agement software, and a number of service features (P2V con- tructure toward their eventual destinations. The performance version, migration, built-in guest templates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nutanix Design Guide
    The FIRST EDITION Nutanix Design Guide Edited by AngeloLuciani,VCP By Nutanix, RenévandenBedem, incollaborationwith NPX,VCDX4,DECM-EA RoundTowerTechnologies Table of Contents 1 Foreword 3 2 Contributors 5 3 Acknowledgements 7 4 Using This Book 7 5 Introduction To Nutanix 9 6 Why Nutanix? 17 7 The Nutanix Eco-System 37 8 Certification & Training 43 9 Design Methodology 49 & The NPX Program 10 Channel Charter 53 11 Mission-Critical Applications 57 12 SAP On Nutanix 69 13 Hardware Platforms 81 14 Sizer & Collector 93 15 IBM Power Systems 97 16 Remote Office, Branch Office 103 17 Xi Frame & EUC 113 Table of Contents 18 Xi IoT 121 19 Xi Leap, Data Protection, 133 DR & Metro Availability 20 Cloud Management 145 & Automation: Calm, Xi Beam & Xi Epoch 21 Era 161 22 Karbon 165 23 Acropolis Security & Flow 169 24 Files 193 25 Volumes 199 26 Buckets 203 27 Prism 209 28 Life Cycle Manager 213 29 AHV 217 30 Move 225 31 X-Ray 229 32 Foundation 241 33 Data Center Facilities 245 34 People & Process 251 35 Risk Management 255 The Nutanix Design Guide 1 Foreword Iamhonoredtowritethisforewordfor‘TheNutanixDesignGuide’. Wehavealwaysbelievedthatcloudwillbemorethanjustarented modelforenterprises.Computingwithintheenterpriseisnuanced, asittriestobalancethefreedomandfriction-freeaccessofthe publiccloudwiththesecurityandcontroloftheprivatecloud.The privateclouditselfisspreadbetweencoredatacenters,remoteand branchoffices,andedgeoperations.Thetrifectaofthe3laws–(a) LawsoftheLand(dataandapplicationsovereignty),(b)Lawsof Physics(dataandmachinegravity),and(c)LawsofEconomics
    [Show full text]
  • Regarding the Challenges of Performance Analysis of Virtualized Systems Page 1 of 12
    Regarding the challenges of Performance Analysis of Virtualized Systems Page 1 of 12 Regarding the challenges of Performance Analysis of Virtualized Systems Steven Harris, [email protected] (A paper written under the guidance of Prof. Raj Jain) Download Abstract Virtualization is an irreplaceable technique for efficient management of hardware resources in the field of information technology and computer science. With this phenomenal technology come challenges that hinder proper performance analysis of virtualized systems. This study focuses on virtualization implementations, various enterprise solutions, characterization of observations, concerns, pitfalls, and industry standard virtualization performance measurement tools. Our goal is to delineate the various intricacies of virtualization to help researchers, information technologists, and hobbyists realize areas of concern and improvement in their performance analysis of virtualized systems. Keyword:Hardware Virtualization, Virtual Machine Monitor, Hypervisor, Performance Analysis, Benchmark, XEN, KVM, Wmware, Virtual Box, AMD-V, Intel VT, SPEC Table of Contents: • 1. Introduction ◦ 1.1 Virtualization Overview • 2. Virtualization Implementations ◦ 2.1 Full Virtualization ◦ 2.2 Partial Virtualization ◦ 2.3 Paravirtualization ◦ 2.4 Hardware Virtualization • 3. Virtualization Solutions • 4. Performance Analysis Challenges ◦ 4.1 Hypervisor Implementation ◦ 4.2 Guest Resource Interdependence ◦ 4.3 Guest Operating System ◦ 4.4 Utilization Ambiguity ◦ 4.5 Proper Model Construction • 5. Virtualization Measurement Tools ◦ 5.1 Benchmarks ◦ 5.2 SPECvirt_SC2010 ◦ 5.3 SPECweb2005 ◦ 5.4 SPECjAppServer2004 ◦ 5.5 SPECmail2008 ◦ 5.6 CPU2006 http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse567-13/ftp/virtual/index.html 4/29/2013 Regarding the challenges of Performance Analysis of Virtualized Systems Page 2 of 12 ◦ 5.7 Network ◦ 5.8 Filesystems • 6. Conclusion • Acronyms • References 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Comparison of Xen and KVM
    Quantitative Comparison of Xen and KVM Todd Deshane, Muli Ben-Yehuda Amit Shah Balaji Rao Zachary Shepherd, IBM Haifa Research Lab Qumranet National Institute of Jeanna N. Matthews Haifa University Campus B-15, Ambience Empyrean Technology Karnataka Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905 64/14 Empress County Surathkal 575014 India Computer Science Israel Behind Empress Gardens Clarkson University Pune 411001 India [email protected] Potsdam, NY 13699 USA [email protected] {deshantm, shephezj, amit.shah@ jnm}@clarkson.edu qumranet.com ABSTRACT For our initial set of tests, the experimental setup consisted of We present initial results from and quantitative analysis of two Ubuntu Linux 8.04 AMD64 on the base machine. The Linux leading open source hypervisors, Xen and KVM. This study kernel 2.6.24-18, Xen 3.2.1+2.6.24-18-xen, and KVM 62 were focuses on the overall performance, performance isolation, and all installed from Ubuntu packages. All guests were scalability of virtual machines running on these hypervisors. Our automatically created by a benchvm script that called debootstrap comparison was carried out using a benchmark suite that we and installed Ubuntu 8.04 AMD64. The guests were then started developed to make the results easily repeatable. Our goals are to with another benchvm script that passed the appropriate kernel understand how the different architectural decisions taken by (2.6.24-18-xen for Xen and 2.6.24-18 for KVM). The hardware different hypervisor developers affect the resulting hypervisors, system was a Dell OptiPlex 745 with a 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 to help hypervisor developers realize areas of improvement for CPU 6600, 4 GB of RAM, 250 GB hard drive, and two 1 Gigabit their hypervisors, and to help users make informed decisions Ethernet cards.
    [Show full text]
  • World-Record Virtualization Performance: Cisco UCS B440 Server
    Cisco UCS B440 M1 High-Performance Blade Server: Performance Brief World-Record Virtualization Performance World-Record-Setting Blade Server Performance performance is observed. This procedure produces a VMware VMmark score and the The Cisco® UCS B440 M1 High-Performance Blade Server is a four-socket server number of tiles for the benchmark run. that leads the blade industry with a VMware VMmark benchmark score of 71.13 at 48 tiles, making it the highest-performing blade server for virtualiza- Industry-Leading Performance tion available anywhere. The server more than doubles HP’s closest blade Cisco tested the Cisco Unified Computing System equipped with a Cisco UCS B440 server result and delivers an 22 percent advantage over the closest M1 blade server containing four eight-core Intel Xeon X7500 series processors with 512 blade server score. This result means that customers can achieve higher consoli- GB of memory connected to two EMC CLARiiON CX4-480 storage systems through a dation ratios in their virtualized environments, with greater performance. Customers Fibre Channel SAN. This four-socket, 32-core system delivers a VMware VMmark score now can run even the most challenging workloads on a blade system with greater surpassing all blade server results posted at http://www.vmmark.com as of August 25, return on investment (ROI), reduced total cost of ownership (TCO), and the agility to 2010 (Figure 1). The VMware VMmark score of 71.13 is 243 percent higher than HP’s deploy applications more rapidly and securely. next-closest blade server result. It is 22 percent higher than the next-closest blade server result, the Dell PowerEdge M910 Blade Server with four eight-core Intel Xeon A Platform Built for Virtualization 7500 series processors.
    [Show full text]
  • Vmware Vsphere 4 Vs. Microsoft Hyper-V R2
    long gone are the days when “sun Microsystems” meant only Solaris on SPARC. peTeR BaeR gaLvin Sun is pushing hard to be a platform pro- vider for multiple operating systems, as well as a provider of their own Solaris operat- Pete’s all things Sun: ing system. In some ways this column is a VMware vSphere 4 vs. continuation of my April column (;login: Microsoft Hyper-V R2 April 2009, Volume 34, Number 2), which contained a virtualization guide. That col- Peter Baer Galvin is the chief technolo- umn discussed the virtualization offerings gist for Corporate Technologies, a premier created by Sun. This column explores the systems integrator and VAR (www.cptech. com). Before that, Peter was the systems rich, controversial, and important terrain manager for Brown University’s Computer Science Department. He has written articles of two of the market leaders in virtualiza- and columns for many publications and is tion, VMware and Microsoft. The topic is not co-author of the Operating Systems Concepts and Applied Operating Systems Concepts Sun-specific but is probably of interest to textbooks. As a consultant and trainer, Peter teaches tutorials and gives talks on security many Sun customers. The Sun x86 servers and system administration worldwide. Peter are certified to run VMware and Windows, blogs at http://www.galvin.info and twit- ters as “PeterGalvin.” as well as Solaris and Linux. In my experi- [email protected] ence, Sun x86 servers, especially the x4600 with its eight sockets and quad-core CPUs, make excellent virtualization servers. The question then becomes, which virtualiza- tion technology to run? OpenSolaris has Xen built in, but many sites want mainstream and well-tested solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Vmmark 2.5 Virtualization Performance of the Dell Equallogic PS6210XS Storage Array
    VMMARK 2.5.2 VIRTUALIZATION PERFORMANCE OF THE DELL EQUALLOGIC PS6210XS STORAGE ARRAY Many modern data centers are using virtual machines (VMs) to consolidate physical servers to increase operational efficiency. As multi-core processors become more commonplace, underutilization of physical servers has become an increasing problem. Without virtualization, it is very difficult to fully utilize the power of a modern server. In a virtualized environment, a software layer lets users create multiple independent VMs on a single physical server, taking full advantage of the hardware resources. The storage solution, which is just as important as the servers and processors, should be flexible to accommodate the demands on real-world applications and operations that virtualization brings to the table. In all virtualized environments, storage performance can deteriorate due to a phenomenon called the input/output (I/O) blender effect. Multiple VMs send their I/O streams to a hypervisor for processing. Unfortunately, if you are using more than one type of workload, I/O profiles are no longer consistent. This randomization of I/O workload profiles, which can occur with all virtualization platforms, renders prior workload optimizations ineffective, which can increase latency, or response time. Because the performance requirements of storage in a completely virtualized environment differ from those in a physical or only partially virtualized environment, it is important to use a benchmark designed with these differences in mind, such as VMware VMmark 2.5.2. VMmark incorporates a variety of platform-level workloads NOVEMBER 2014 A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT Commissioned by Dell such as vMotion® and Storage vMotion® in addition to executing diverse workloads on a collection of virtual machines.
    [Show full text]
  • TPC-V: a Benchmark for Evaluating the Performance of Database Applications in Virtual Environments Priya Sethuraman and H
    TPC-V: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Performance of Database Applications in Virtual Environments Priya Sethuraman and H. Reza Taheri, VMWare, Inc. {psethuraman, rtaheri}@vmware.com TPCTC 2010 Singapore © 2010 VMware Inc. All rights reserved Agenda/Topics Introduction to virtualization Existing benchmarks Genesis of TPC-V But what is TPC-E??? TPC-V design considerations Set architectures, variability, and elasticity Benchmark development status Answers to some common questions 2 TPC TC 2010 What is a Virtual Machine? A (VM) is a software computer that, like a physical computer, runs an operating system and applications. An operating system installed on a virtual machine is called a guest operating system. Virtual machines run on host servers. The same server can run many virtual machines. Every VM runs in an isolated environment. Started out with IBM VM in the 60s Also on Sun Solaris, HP Itanium, IBM Power/AIX, others A new wave started in the late 90s on X86 • Initially, enthusiasts ran Windows and Linux VMs on their PCs Traditional Architecture Virtual Architecture 3 TPC TC 2010 Why virtualize a server ? Server consolidation • The vast majority of server are grossly underutilized • Reduces both CapEx and OpEx Migration of VMs (both storage and CPU/memory) • Enables live load balancing • Facilitates maintenance High availability • Allows a small number of generic servers to back up all servers Fault tolerance • Lock-step execution of two VMs Cloud computing! Utility computing was finally enabled by • Ability to consolidate
    [Show full text]
  • Tuning IBM System X Servers for Performance
    Front cover Tuning IBM System x Servers for Performance Identify and eliminate performance bottlenecks in key subsystems Expert knowledge from inside the IBM performance labs Covers Windows, Linux, and VMware ESX David Watts Alexandre Chabrol Phillip Dundas Dustin Fredrickson Marius Kalmantas Mario Marroquin Rajeev Puri Jose Rodriguez Ruibal David Zheng ibm.com/redbooks International Technical Support Organization Tuning IBM System x Servers for Performance August 2009 SG24-5287-05 Note: Before using this information and the product it supports, read the information in “Notices” on page xvii. Sixth Edition (August 2009) This edition applies to IBM System x servers running Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, and VMware ESX. © Copyright International Business Machines Corporation 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009. All rights reserved. Note to U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights -- Use, duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Contents Notices . xvii Trademarks . xviii Foreword . xxi Preface . xxiii The team who wrote this book . xxiv Become a published author . xxix Comments welcome. xxix Part 1. Introduction . 1 Chapter 1. Introduction to this book . 3 1.1 Operating an efficient server - four phases . 4 1.2 Performance tuning guidelines . 5 1.3 The System x Performance Lab . 5 1.4 IBM Center for Microsoft Technologies . 7 1.5 Linux Technology Center . 7 1.6 IBM Client Benchmark Centers . 8 1.7 Understanding the organization of this book . 10 Chapter 2. Understanding server types . 13 2.1 Server scalability . 14 2.2 Authentication services . 15 2.2.1 Windows Server 2008 Active Directory domain controllers .
    [Show full text]
  • Vmware® Vmmark™ Results
    VMware® VMmark™ V1.1.1 Results Vendor and Hardware Platform: Sun Microsystems Sun Fire [tm] X4270 VMmark V1.1.1 Score = Virtualization Platform: VMware ESX 4.0 (build 164009) 24.18 @ 17 Tiles Tested By: Sun Microsystems Test Date: 09/17/2009 Performance Section Configuration Section Notes Section Performance Configuration Notes for Workload Performance webserver javaserver mailserver fileserver database TILE_0 Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio GM p0 1699.12 1.67 18141.55 1.09 1630.25 1.49 16.81 1.31 2428.50 1.63 1.42 p1 1705.80 1.67 18133.20 1.09 1653.10 1.51 16.62 1.30 2442.20 1.64 1.42 p2 1657.72 1.63 18144.38 1.09 1531.58 1.40 16.89 1.32 2442.80 1.64 1.40 TILE_1 Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio GM p0 1714.58 1.68 17701.25 1.07 1538.97 1.40 16.77 1.31 2437.12 1.63 1.40 p1 1731.62 1.70 18148.62 1.09 1415.53 1.29 17.10 1.33 2447.72 1.64 1.39 p2 1734.97 1.70 18133.85 1.09 1370.42 1.25 17.19 1.34 2446.78 1.64 1.39 TILE_2 Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio GM p0 1801.25 1.77 18141.17 1.09 1709.15 1.56 17.43 1.36 2444.22 1.64 1.46 p1 1746.92 1.71 18132.33 1.09 1704.60 1.55 17.35 1.35 2455.28 1.65 1.45 p2 1720.03 1.69 18138.65 1.09 1522.97 1.39 17.53 1.37 2445.38 1.64 1.42 TILE_3 Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio Actual Ratio GM p0 1602.20 1.57 18153.62 1.09 1596.67 1.46 16.67 1.30 2433.35 1.63 1.40 p1 1677.28 1.65 17684.88 1.06 1620.78 1.48 16.74 1.30 2442.82 1.64 1.41 p2 1686.78 1.66 18135.20 1.09 1569.42 1.43 16.61 1.29 2434.00
    [Show full text]
  • Vmware® Vmmark® Results for Cisco UCS B260 M4 Server
    VMware® VMmark® V2.5.1 Results Vendor and Hardware Platform: Cisco UCS B260 M4 Virtualization Platform: VMware ESXi 5.1.0 U2 Build VMmark V2.5.1 Score = 1483097 VMware vCenter Server : VMware vCenter Server 5.1.0 19.18 @ 16 Tiles Build 799731 Number of Hosts: 2 Uniform Hosts [yes/no]: yes Total sockets/cores/threads in test: 4/60/120 Tested By: Cisco Systems Test Date: 02-10-2014 Performance Section Configuration Section Notes Section Performance Configuration Notes for Workload Performance mailserver olio dvdstoreA dvdstoreB dvdstoreC TILE_0 Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS GM p0 328.10 0.99 124.00 4735.38 1.02 127.64 4076.12 1.85 62.41 2959.47 1.95 50.08 2249.15 2.13 39.09 1.51 p1 328.40 0.99 124.75 4712.48 1.02 133.04 4003.62 1.82 64.72 2921.20 1.92 51.58 2115.35 2.00 39.09 1.48 p2 326.07 0.99 134.00 4713.12 1.02 141.01 3948.88 1.80 66.91 3081.20 2.03 56.55 2281.50 2.16 43.61 1.51 TILE_1 Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS GM p0 326.40 0.99 131.75 4708.85 1.01 127.49 4112.73 1.87 60.72 3075.40 2.03 45.75 2159.25 2.04 37.11 1.51 p1 326.40 0.99 134.00 4692.15 1.01 133.32 3986.60 1.81 65.70 3035.95 2.00 52.75 2181.30 2.06 41.89 1.49 p2 325.98 0.99 134.00 4686.15 1.01 139.80 3901.30 1.77 69.07 2960.75 1.95 55.82 2204.45 2.08 46.73 1.48 TILE_2 Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS Actual Ratio QoS GM p0 328.75 1.00 124.00 4705.02 1.01 130.20 4016.22 1.83 64.63 2939.68 1.94 51.34 2090.45 1.98 40.01 1.48 p1 330.30
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Dimensional Workload Analysis and Synthesis for Modern Storage Systems
    Multi-dimensional Workload Analysis and Synthesis for Modern Storage Systems A Dissertation Proposal Presented by Vasily Tarasov to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science Stony Brook University Technical Report FSL-13-02 April 2013 Abstract of the Dissertation Proposal Multi-dimensional Workload Analysis and Synthesis for Modern Storage Systems by Vasily Tarasov Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science Stony Brook University 2013 Modern computer systems produce and process an overwhelming amount of data at a high and growing rates. The performance of storage hardware components, however, cannot keep up with the required speed at a practical cost. To mitigate this discrepancy, storage vendors incorporate many workload-driven optimizations in their products. New emerging applications cause workload patterns to change rapidly and significantly. One of the prominent examples is a rapid shift towards virtualized environments that mixes I/O streams from different applications and perturbs their access patterns. In addition, modern users demand more and more convenience features: deduplication, snapshotting, encryption, and other features have become almost must-have features in modern storage solutions. Stringent performance requirements, changing I/O patterns, and the ever growing feature list increase the complexity of modern storage systems. The complexity of design, in turn, makes the evaluation of the storage systems a difficult task. To resolve this task timely and efficiently, prac- tical and intelligent evaluation tools and techniques are needed. This thesis explores the complex- ity of evaluating storage systems and proposes a Multi-Dimensional Histogram (MDH) workload analysis as a basis for designing a variety of evaluation tools.
    [Show full text]
  • An Extensible I/O Performance Analysis Framework for Distributed Environments
    An Extensible I/O Performance Analysis Framework for Distributed Environments Benjamin Eckart1, Xubin He1,HongOng2, and Stephen L. Scott2 1 Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN 2 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN Abstract. As distributed systems increase in both popularity and scale, it becomes increasingly important to understand as well as to system- atically identify performance anomalies and potential opportunities for optimization. However, large scale distributed systems are often complex and non-deterministic due to hardware and software heterogeneity and configurable runtime options that may boost or diminish performance. It is therefore important to be able to disseminate and present the informa- tion gleaned from a local system under a common evaluation methodol- ogy so that such efforts can be valuable in one environment and provide general guidelines for other environments. Evaluation methodologies can conveniently be encapsulated inside of a common analysis framework that serves as an outer layer upon which appropriate experimental de- sign and relevant workloads (benchmarking and profiling applications) can be supported. In this paper we present ExPerT, an Extensible Performance T oolkit. ExPerT defines a flexible framework from which a set of benchmarking, tracing, and profiling applications can be correlated together in a unified interface. The framework consists primarily of two parts: an extensible module for profiling and benchmarking support, and a unified data discov- ery tool for information gathering and parsing. We include a case study of disk I/O performance in virtualized distributed environments which demonstrates the flexibility of our framework for selecting benchmark suite, creating experimental design, and performing analysis. Keywords: I/O profiling, Disk I/O, Distributed Systems, Virtualization.
    [Show full text]