DOCSLIB.ORG

Performance Evaluation of Container Runtimes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Performance Evaluation of Container Runtimes Performance Evaluation of Container Runtimes Lennart Espe, Anshul Jindal a, Vladimir Podolskiy b and Michael Gerndt Chair of Computer Architecture and Parallel Systems, TU Munich, Garching, Germany Keywords: Container Runtime, OCI Runtime, Performance Evaluation, Benchmarking for Container Runtimes, Containers, Resource Management, Cloud Computing. Abstract: The co-location of containers on the same host leads to significant performance concerns in the multi-tenant environment such as the cloud. These concerns are raised due to an attempt to maximize host resource utiliza- tion by increasing the number of containers running on the same host. The selection of a container runtime becomes critical in the case of strict performance requirements. In the scope of the study, two commonly used runtimes were evaluated: containerd (industry standard) and CRI-O (reference implementation of the CRI) on two different Open Container Initiative (OCI) runtimes: runc (default for most container runtimes) and gVisor (highly secure alternative to runc). Evaluation aspects of container runtimes include the performance of running containers, the performance of container runtime operations, and scalability. A tool called Touch- Stone was developed to address these evaluation aspects. The tool uses the CRI standard and is pluggable into any Kubernetes-compatible container runtime. Performance results demonstrate the better performance of containerd in terms of CPU usage, memory latency and scalability aspects, whereas file system operations (in particular, write operations) are performed more efficiently by CRI-O. 1 INTRODUCTION mands for low start-up times of the underlying con- tainer runtime. Past studies have shown that the Cloud computing as an infrastructure model has be- performance overhead of wide-spread container run- come an industry standard. Container technology times is low and they are more resource-efficient than plays a leading role in this change allowing to effi- traditional virtual machines (Kozhirbayev and Sin- ciently share host resources among multiple tenants. nott, 2017). Combined with the ability to co-locate Hence, the demand for the performance evaluation containers, this resource-efficiency leads to container of container workloads has risen. The widely-used runtimes being the main driver behind energy and container orchestrator Kubernetes supports every con- cost reduction in the container-based computing en- tainer runtime that implements the standardized Con- vironments. Still, though virtual machines are more tainer Runtime Interface (CRI) (Hong, 2019). Al- resource-intensive, they offer a higher degree of secu- though the cluster administrator can choose any CRI rity and performance isolation (Bui, 2015). implementation, a guiding evaluation of runtime per- In this study, two commonly used runtimes are formance is missing. evaluated: containerd and CRI-O on two differ- Resource management is the most important task ent Open Container Initiative (OCI) runtimes: runc in multi-tenant environments such as the cloud. It (default for most container runtimes) and gVisor aims at resource efficiency in dense deployment mod- (highly secure alternative to runc). The evaluation els like FaaS (Functions-as-a-Service, a service that tool TouchStone is developed to evaluate various per- abstracts away any underlying infrastructure of an formance aspects of resource management in con- application deployment) and other serverless archi- tainer runtimes in a reliable manner. TouchStone tectures. As new deployment models are being in- measures how well the runtime’s performance scales troduced to the market, more requirements on spe- with the increase in the number of containers, how cific facets of container runtime performance pop up. resource overuse is coped with as well as general run- For example, Function-as-a-Service infrastructure de- time performance. a https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7773-5342 Section 2 provides the basic background knowl- b https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2775-3630 edge for the paper. Section 3 delves into the imple- 273 Espe, L., Jindal, A., Podolskiy, V. and Gerndt, M. Performance Evaluation of Container Runtimes. DOI: 10.5220/0009340402730281 In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science (CLOSER 2020), pages 273-281 ISBN: 978-989-758-424-4 Copyright c 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved CLOSER 2020 - 10th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science mentation details of the container runtimes studies. drivers (Walli, ). It is mainly developed by RedHat, Section 4 discusses related works. Section 5 exam- and it serves as a default runtime for OpenShift, a ines the architecture and implementation of Touch- popular Kubernetes distribution for enterprise (Mc- Stone evaluation tool. Section 6 provides evaluation Carty, ). The typical life cycle of the interaction with results. Section 7 summarizes and discusses the re- CRI-O is similar to containerd over the CRI endpoint. sults. Section 8 concludes the work. Major differences in internal container handling to containerd do not exist since runc is the default OCI runtime when running CRI-O. 2 BACKGROUND 2.2 Evaluated OCI Runtimes 2.1 Evaluated Container Runtimes The Open Container Initiative is a Linux Founda- tion project to design open standards for operating- A container runtime is a software that runs the con- system-level virtualization, most importantly Linux tainers and manages the container images on a de- containers. The Open Containers Initiative defines ployment node. Specific container runtimes are dis- two standards – the image-spec for OCI images and cussed in the following subsection. This subsection the runtime-spec for OCI runtimes1,2. The typical explores two container runtimes: containerd and CRI- job sequence would be that a container runtime (e.g. O. containerd) downloads an OCI image, unpacks it and prepares an OCI bundle (a container specification in- 2.1.1 Containerd cluding the root filesystem) on the local disk. After that, a OCI runtime like runc is able to create a run- Containerd is the default runtime used by the Docker ning instance from this container specification. OCI engine (Crosby, 2017). It is often being referred to images can be created using a number of tools, for as an industry standard because of its wide adoption. example docker build command. After the successful Underneath, this runtime uses runc, the reference im- build, these images are usually pushed and published plementation of the OCI runtime specification. con- to a public or private container registry. This subsec- tainerd stores and manages images and snapshots; it tion explores two container runtimes: runc and gVisor starts and stops containers by delegating execution (runsc). tasks to the OCI runtime (The containerd authors, ). To start a new containerized process, containerd has 2.2.1 Runc to undertake the following actions: 1) create a new Container from a given OCI image; 2) create a new Runc is the lowest runtime layer of containerd that Task in the Container context; 3) start the Task (at explicitly handles containers. It was used as the refer- this point runc takes over and starts executing the OCI ence implementation when drafting the OCI runtime bundle supplied by containerd). specification (Open Container Initiative, 2019). Inter- Containerd provides CRI-compatible gRPC end- nally, runc uses libcontainer to interact with OS-level point enabled by default. When using this endpoint, components. abstractions specific to containerd are hidden from the client so that the user can operate on CRI-level ab- 2.2.2 Gvisor (Runsc) stractions. Typical OCI runtimes like runc limit system access 2.1.2 CRI-O using different capability models integrated into the Linux kernel like AppArmor, SELinux and SEC- Container Runtime Interface (CRI) is a standard- COMP. If an adversary has access to a limited set of ized interface for Kubernetes plugins that execute system calls and manages to exploit a vulnerability and watch over containers. It was created as an at- in the Linux kernel, then he may be able to escape tempt to stabilize the communication interface be- the sandbox and gain privileged access. This is a ma- tween kubelet and the host container runtime. It is jor risk when running untrusted code like a provider based on gRPC, a cross-language library for remote of FaaS infrastructure does. When running a con- procedure calls using Protocol Buffers. tainer in a VMM-based runtime like Kata Containers, CRI-O is a container runtime built to provide a hypervisor will be started and it will virtualize the a bridge between OCI runtimes and the high-level Kubernetes CRI. It is based on an older version of 1github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/ the Docker architecture that was built around graph 2github.com/opencontainers/runtime-spec/ 274 Performance Evaluation of Container Runtimes underlying system hardware the container is running based virtualization although no significant overheads on (kat, 2019); this approach has a significant perfor- in other performance metrics were detected (Morabito mance overhead. et al., 2015). gVisor’s approach to container isolation is in be- The study by Xavier et al. went further by dis- tween that of a typical container runtime and of a covering that the near-native performance overhead fully virtualized runtime. The idea of a guest ker- of containers (LXC, Linux-VServer, and Open VZ) is nel of VMM-based runtimes served as an inspiration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Benchmarking, Analysis, and Optimization of Serverless Function Snapshots
    Benchmarking, Analysis, and Optimization of Serverless Function Snapshots Dmitrii Ustiugov∗ Plamen Petrov Marios Kogias† University of Edinburgh University of Edinburgh Microsoft Research United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Edouard Bugnion Boris Grot EPFL University of Edinburgh Switzerland United Kingdom ABSTRACT CCS CONCEPTS Serverless computing has seen rapid adoption due to its high scala- • Computer systems organization ! Cloud computing; • In- bility and flexible, pay-as-you-go billing model. In serverless, de- formation systems ! Computing platforms; Data centers; • velopers structure their services as a collection of functions, spo- Software and its engineering ! n-tier architectures. radically invoked by various events like clicks. High inter-arrival time variability of function invocations motivates the providers KEYWORDS to start new function instances upon each invocation, leading to cloud computing, datacenters, serverless, virtualization, snapshots significant cold-start delays that degrade user experience. To reduce ACM Reference Format: cold-start latency, the industry has turned to snapshotting, whereby Dmitrii Ustiugov, Plamen Petrov, Marios Kogias, Edouard Bugnion, and Boris an image of a fully-booted function is stored on disk, enabling a Grot. 2021. Benchmarking, Analysis, and Optimization of Serverless Func- faster invocation compared to booting a function from scratch. tion Snapshots . In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on This work introduces vHive, an open-source framework for Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems serverless experimentation with the goal of enabling researchers (ASPLOS ’21), April 19–23, 2021, Virtual, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, to study and innovate across the entire serverless stack. Using 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3445814.3446714 vHive, we characterize a state-of-the-art snapshot-based serverless infrastructure, based on industry-leading Containerd orchestra- 1 INTRODUCTION tion framework and Firecracker hypervisor technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualifikationsprofil #10309
    QUALIFIKATIONSPROFIL #10309 ALLGEMEINE DATEN Geburtsjahr: 1972 Ausbildung: Abitur Diplom, Informatik, (TU, Kaiserslautern) Fremdsprachen: Englisch, Französisch Spezialgebiete: Kubernetes KENNTNISSE Tools Active Directory Apache Application Case CATIA CVS Eclipse Exchange Framework GUI Innovator ITIL J2EE JMS LDAP Lotus Notes make MS Exchange MS Outlook MS-Exchange MS-Office MS-Visual Studio NetBeans OSGI RACF SAS sendmail Together Turbine UML VMWare .NET ADS ANT ASP ASP.NET Flash GEnie IDES Image Intellij IDEA IPC Jackson JBOSS Lex MS-Visio ODBC Oracle Application Server OWL PGP SPSS SQS TesserAct Tivoli Toolbook Total Transform Visio Weblogic WebSphere YACC Tätigkeiten Administration Analyse Beratung Design Dokumentation KI Konzeption Optimierung Support Vertrieb Sprachen Ajax Basic C C# C++ Cobol Delphi ETL Fortran Java JavaScript Natural Perl PHP PL/I PL-SQL Python SAL Smalltalk SQL ABAP Atlas Clips Delta FOCUS HTML Nomad Pascal SPL Spring TAL XML Detaillierte Komponenten AM BI FS-BA MDM PDM PM BW CO FI LO PP Datenbanken Approach IBM Microsoft Object Store Oracle Progress Sybase DMS ISAM JDBC mySQL DC/Netzwerke ATM DDS Gateway HBCI Hub Internet Intranet OpenSSL SSL VPN Asynchronous CISCO Router DNS DSL Firewall Gateways HTTP RFC Router Samba Sockets Switches Finance Business Intelligence Excel Konsolidierung Management Projektleiter Reporting Testing Wertpapiere Einkauf CAD Systeme CATIA V5 sonstige Hardware Digital HP PC Scanner Siemens Spark Teradata Bus FileNet NeXT SUN Switching Tools, Methoden Docker Go Kubernetes Rational RUP
    [Show full text]
  • Gvisor Is a Project to Restrict the Number of Syscalls That the Kernel and User Space Need to Communicate
    SED 820 Transcript EPISODE 820 [INTRODUCTION] [0:00:00.3] JM: The Linux operating system includes user space and kernel space. In user space, the user can create and interact with a variety of applications directly. In kernel space, the Linux kernel provides a stable environment in which device drivers interact with hardware and manage low-level resources. A Linux container is a virtualized environment that runs within user space. To perform an operation, a process in a container in user space makes a syscall, which is a system call into kernel space. This allows the container to have access to resources like memory and disk. Kernel space must be kept secure to ensure the operating system’s integrity. Linux includes hundreds of syscalls. Each syscall represents an interface between the user space and the kernel space. Security vulnerabilities can emerge from this wide attack surface of different syscalls and most applications only need a small number of syscalls to provide their required functionality. gVisor is a project to restrict the number of syscalls that the kernel and user space need to communicate. gVisor is a runtime layer between the user space container and the kernel space. gVisor reduces the number of syscalls that can be made into kernel space. The security properties of gVisor make it an exciting project today, but it is the portability features of gVisor that hint at a huge future opportunity. By inserting an interpreter interface between containers and the Linux kernel, gVisor presents the container world with an opportunity to run on operating systems other than Linux.
    [Show full text]
  • Surviving Software Dependencies
    practice DOI:10.1145/3347446 is additional code a programmer wants Article development led by queue.acm.org to call. Adding a dependency avoids repeating work: designing, testing, de- bugging, and maintaining a specific Software reuse is finally here unit of code. In this article, that unit of but comes with risks. code is referred to as a package; some systems use the terms library and mod- BY RUSS COX ule instead. Taking on externally written depen- dencies is not new. Most programmers have at one point in their careers had to go through the steps of manually Surviving installing a required library, such as C’s PCRE or zlib; C++’s Boost or Qt; or Java’s JodaTime or JUnit. These pack- ages contain high-quality, debugged Software code that required significant exper- tise to develop. For a program that needs the functionality provided by one of these packages, the tedious work of manually downloading, in- Dependencies stalling, and updating the package is easier than the work of redeveloping that functionality from scratch. The high fixed costs of reuse, however, mean manually reused packages tend to be big; a tiny package would be easier to reimplement. FOR DECADES, DISCUSSION of software reuse was more A dependency manager (a.k.a. pack- common than actual software reuse. Today, the situation age manager) automates the download- ing and installation of dependency is reversed: developers reuse software written by others packages. As dependency managers every day, in the form of software dependencies, and the make individual packages easier to download and install, the lower fixed situation goes mostly unexamined.
    [Show full text]
  • Firecracker: Lightweight Virtualization for Serverless Applications
    Firecracker: Lightweight Virtualization for Serverless Applications Alexandru Agache, Marc Brooker, Andreea Florescu, Alexandra Iordache, Anthony Liguori, Rolf Neugebauer, Phil Piwonka, and Diana-Maria Popa, Amazon Web Services https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi20/presentation/agache This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI ’20) February 25–27, 2020 • Santa Clara, CA, USA 978-1-939133-13-7 Open access to the Proceedings of the 17th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI ’20) is sponsored by Firecracker: Lightweight Virtualization for Serverless Applications Alexandru Agache Marc Brooker Andreea Florescu Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Alexandra Iordache Anthony Liguori Rolf Neugebauer Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Phil Piwonka Diana-Maria Popa Amazon Web Services Amazon Web Services Abstract vantage over traditional server provisioning processes: mul- titenancy allows servers to be shared across a large num- Serverless containers and functions are widely used for de- ber of workloads, and the ability to provision new func- ploying and managing software in the cloud. Their popularity tions and containers in milliseconds allows capacity to be is due to reduced cost of operations, improved utilization of switched between workloads quickly as demand changes. hardware, and faster scaling than traditional deployment meth- Serverless is also attracting the attention of the research com- ods. The economics and scale of serverless applications de- munity [21,26,27,44,47], including work on scaling out video mand that workloads from multiple customers run on the same encoding [13], linear algebra [20, 53] and parallel compila- hardware with minimal overhead, while preserving strong se- tion [12].
    [Show full text]
  • Architectural Implications of Function-As-A-Service Computing
    Architectural Implications of Function-as-a-Service Computing Mohammad Shahrad Jonathan Balkind David Wentzlaff Princeton University Princeton University Princeton University Princeton, USA Princeton, USA Princeton, USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Network Serverless computing is a rapidly growing cloud application model, popularized by Amazon’s Lambda platform. Serverless cloud ser- Scheduling vices provide fine-grained provisioning of resources, which scale Platform (priorwork) automatically with user demand. Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) appli- Queueing Management cations follow this serverless model, with the developer providing 35% decrease in IPC Interference their application as a set of functions which are executed in response due to interference 6x variation due to to a user- or system-generated event. Functions are designed to Memory BW invocation pattern 20x MPKI for be short-lived and execute inside containers or virtual machines, Branch MPKI >10x exec time short functions introducing a range of system-level overheads. This paper studies for short functions Cold Start Server the architectural implications of this emerging paradigm. Using (500ms cold start) Up to 20x (thispaper) Container the commercial-grade Apache OpenWhisk FaaS platform on real slowdown servers, this work investigates and identifies the architectural im- Native plications of FaaS serverless computing. The workloads, along with Execution Figure 1: We characterize the server-level overheads of the way that FaaS inherently interleaves short functions from many Function-as-a-Service applications, compared to native exe- tenants frustrates many of the locality-preserving architectural cution. This contrasts with prior work [2–5] which focused structures common in modern processors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aurora Operating System
    The Aurora Operating System Revisiting the Single Level Store Emil Tsalapatis Ryan Hancock Tavian Barnes RCS Lab, University of Waterloo RCS Lab, University of Waterloo RCS Lab, University of Waterloo [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Ali José Mashtizadeh RCS Lab, University of Waterloo [email protected] ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Applications on modern operating systems manage their single level stores, transparent persistence, snapshots, check- ephemeral state in memory, and persistent state on disk. En- point/restore suring consistency between them is a source of significant developer effort, yet still a source of significant bugs inma- ACM Reference Format: ture applications. We present the Aurora single level store Emil Tsalapatis, Ryan Hancock, Tavian Barnes, and Ali José Mash- (SLS), an OS that simplifies persistence by automatically per- tizadeh. 2021. The Aurora Operating System: Revisiting the Single sisting all traditionally ephemeral application state. With Level Store. In Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS recent storage hardware like NVMe SSDs and NVDIMMs, ’21), June 1-June 3, 2021, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. ACM, New York, NY, Aurora is able to continuously checkpoint entire applications USA, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458336.3465285 with millisecond granularity. Aurora is the first full POSIX single level store to han- dle complex applications ranging from databases to web 1 INTRODUCTION browsers. Moreover, by providing new ways to interact with Single level storage (SLS) systems provide persistence of and manipulate application state, it enables applications to applications as an operating system service. Their advantage provide features that would otherwise be prohibitively dif- lies in removing the semantic gap between the in-memory ficult to implement.
    [Show full text]
  • Containerd: Integration
    containerd: integration Lantao Liu (Google) Wei Fu (Alibaba Cloud) containerd status containerd matures ● 5th project to graduate from CNCF ● Broad support from companies ● All major cloud providers using containerd ● Support Linux and Windows platform Architecture Client-Server Design Client - High level operations using client - New functionality, interfaces may change (rarely) Server - Low level interfaces to resources over GRPC - Stable API, guaranteed 1.x compatibility Backend Service Interface - Provides access to all components - Low level components wrapped by metadata store - Provides namespacing (content/Snapshotter/Image/Container) Snapshotter Snapshotters - COW filesystems - Union FS and Block Device implementations - Container RW Layer Metrics Metric API - Metrics exposed through Prometheus API - Exposes metrics for containerd process & container level metrics Kubernetes Runtime Support Kubernetes Runtime Support - CRI gRPC API exposed from containerd - Kubelet can be configured to use containerd as runtime Summary ● Stable gRPC interface ● Kubernetes Runtime Support Smart Client Model gRPC API Smart Client - Mirrors internal component interfaces - General-Purpose interface - Snapshots, Content, Containers, Task, Events, etc - Direct access to the component (e.g. Snapshots) Pull Image Diff Content Snapshotter Image Registry Client Service Service Service Service Get manifest store manifest each layer Get layer store layer each layer prepare snapshot apply diff read layer mount & unpack layer descriptor commit snapshot create
    [Show full text]
  • Linux Kernel Debugging Advanced Operating Systems 2020/2021
    Linux Kernel Debugging Advanced Operating Systems 2020/2021 Vlastimil Babka Linux Kernel Developer, SUSE Labs [email protected] Agenda – Debugging Scenarios • Debugging production kernels – Post-mortem analysis: interpreting kernel oops/panic output, creating and analyzing kernel crash dumps – Kernel observability – dynamic debug, tracing, alt-sysrq dumps, live crash session • Debugging during individual kernel development – Debug prints – printk() facilitiy – Debugger (gdb) support • Finding (latent) bugs during collaborative development – Optional runtime checks configurable during build – Testing and fuzzing – Static analysis 2 Enterprise Linux Distro and Bugs (incl. Kernel) • The software installation (e.g. ISO) itself is free (and open source, obviously) • Customers pay for support subscription – Delivery of (tested by QA) package updates – fixing known bugs, CVE’s… but not more! – Getting reported bugs fixed • Bugs specific to customer’s workload, hardware, “luck”, large number of machines… • Upstream will also fix reported bugs, but only with latest kernel and no effort guarantees • Dealing with kernel bugs, e.g. crashes – Find out the root cause (buggy code) with limited possibilities (compared to local development) • Typically no direct access to customer’s system or workload • Long turnarounds for providing a modified debug kernel and reproducing the bug – Write and deliver a fix (upstream first!) or workaround; fix goes to next update • Possibly a livepatch in some cases – Is a lot of fun ;-) 3 Kernel Oops - The Real World Example
    [Show full text]
  • Bring Security to the Container World, and More
    01,1001.01 100 010 , , 100 , 1 100 , 1 “All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection, except of course for the problem of too many indirections.” ----David Wheeler .- • :.’:. • : . • ...,:. • :....,:.: .,-.,. ., • .’. What’s Kata Containers • /// • // • /.,/ ./A • /.,/. • ,/.,/// Kata Containers is Virtualized Container :- • • : : • - • : • • app centric OS feature package runtime .,- • -,, • • • , , • , , system view OS supervisor isolation hardware aware* Containerization Virtualization app centric OS feature system view OS supervisor package runtime isolation hardware aware* View Point From application to OS; The From hardware to OS; intercept environment of an app the instructions of guest system Design Goal Kernel ABI, including syscall A machine like the host, could interfaces, procfs/sysfs, etc. run a kernel on top of it Implementati Inside kernel, a feature of the A supervisor of the kernel, a on scheduler scheduler of the schedulers • Namespace Virtual Machine – • Process Process Process – Process VM is a type of container Guest Kernel indeed Host Kernel * Industry Compatible Enhanced Networking Direct Device Support Run Custom Kernel More Secure :-:-: • : ! - ::: ! :-:- - ! :- • : " ,-:-:- Docker " --B Image runC " : -: : : -- - : Docker Docker Image runC Image * Intel® Clear Containers Announced project Release 1.0 May 2015 Dec 2017 May 2018 *Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others. Multi Architecture Direct
    [Show full text]
  • Sub-Millisecond Startup for Serverless Computing with Initialization-Less Booting
    Session 6A: Datacenter/cloud power/performance — Managing ASPLOS’20, March 16–20, 2020, Lausanne, Switzerland the beast. Physics Experiments (with a particular eye on CERN LHC) Catalyzer: Sub-millisecond Startup for Serverless Computing with Initialization-less Booting Dong Duyz, Tianyi Yuyzx, Yubin Xiayz, Binyu Zangyz, Guanglu Yanx, Chenggang Qinx, Qixuan Wux, Haibo Chenyz y Shanghai Key Laboratory of Scalable Computing and Systems, Shanghai Jiao Tong University z Institute of Parallel and Distributed Systems, Shanghai Jiao Tong University x Ant Financial Services Group Abstract Catalyzer has been adopted by Ant Financial, and we also Serverless computing promises cost-efficiency and elasticity present lessons learned from industrial development. for high-productive software development. To achieve this, CCS Concepts • Computer systems organization → the serverless sandbox system must address two challenges: Cloud computing; • Software and its engineering → strong isolation between function instances, and low startup Operating systems. latency to ensure user experience. While strong isolation can be provided by virtualization-based sandboxes, the ini- Keywords serverless computing; startup latency; check- tialization of sandbox and application causes non-negligible point and restore; operating system startup overhead. Conventional sandbox systems fall short in ACM Reference Format: low-latency startup due to their application-agnostic nature: Dong Du, Tianyi Yu, Yubin Xia, Binyu Zang, Guanglu Yan, Cheng- they can only reduce the latency of sandbox initialization gang Qin, Qixuan Wu, Haibo Chen. 2020. Catalyzer: Sub-millisecond through hypervisor and guest kernel customization, which Startup for Serverless Computing with Initialization-less Booting. is inadequate and does not mitigate the majority of startup In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Archi- overhead.
    [Show full text]
  • X-Containers: Breaking Down Barriers to Improve
    Session: Cloud II ASPLOS’19, April 13–17, 2019, Providence, RI, USA X-Containers: Breaking Down Barriers to Improve Performance and Isolation of Cloud-Native Containers Zhiming Shen Zhen Sun Gur-Eyal Sela∗ Cornell University Cornell University University of California, Berkeley Eugene Bagdasaryan Christina Delimitrou Robbert Van Renesse Cornell University Cornell University Cornell University Hakim Weatherspoon Cornell University Abstract CCS Concepts • Security and privacy → Virtualiza- “Cloud-native” container platforms, such as Kubernetes, have tion and security; • Software and its engineering → become an integral part of production cloud environments. Operating systems. One of the principles in designing cloud-native applica- Keywords Containers; X-Containers; Cloud-Native; Li- tions is called Single Concern Principle, which suggests that brary OS; exokernel each container should handle a single responsibility well. In this paper, we propose X-Containers as a new security ACM Reference Format: paradigm for isolating single-concerned cloud-native con- Zhiming Shen, Zhen Sun, Gur-Eyal Sela, Eugene Bagdasaryan, tainers. Each container is run with a Library OS (LibOS) Christina Delimitrou, Robbert Van Renesse, and Hakim Weath- that supports multi-processing for concurrency and compat- erspoon. 2019. X-Containers: Breaking Down Barriers to Improve Performance and Isolation of Cloud-Native Containers. In 2019 Ar- ibility. A minimal exokernel ensures strong isolation with chitectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Sys- small kernel attack surface. We show an implementation tems (ASPLOS ’19), April 13–17, 2019, Providence, RI, USA. ACM, New of the X-Containers architecture that leverages Xen para- York, NY, USA, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3297858.3304016 virtualization (PV) to turn Linux kernel into a LibOS.
    [Show full text]