DOCSLIB.ORG

Serverless Computing: an Investigation of Factors Influencing Microservice Performance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Serverless Computing: an Investigation of Factors Influencing Microservice Performance Serverless Computing: An Investigation of Factors Influencing Microservice Performance Wes Lloyd1, Shruti Ramesh4, Swetha Chinthalapati2, Lan Ly3, Shrideep Pallickara5 Institute of Technology 5Department of Computer Science University of Washington 4Microsoft Colorado State University Tacoma, Washington USA Redmond, Washington USA Fort Collins, Colorado USA 1 2 3 wlloyd, swethach, [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract— Serverless computing platforms provide driving a paradigm shift rivaling a scale not seen since the function(s)-as-a-Service (FaaS) to end users while promising advent of cloud computing itself! reduced hosting costs, high availability, fault tolerance, and Fundamentally different than application hosting with IaaS dynamic elasticity for hosting individual functions known as or Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) clouds, with serverless microservices. Serverless Computing environments, unlike computing, applications are decomposed and deployed as code Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud platforms, abstract modules. Each cloud provider restricts the maximum size of infrastructure management including creation of virtual machines (VMs), operating system containers, and request load balancing code (e.g. 64 to 256MB) and runtime (e.g. 5 minutes) of from users. To conserve cloud server capacity and energy, cloud functions. Serverless platform functions are often used to host providers allow hosting infrastructure to go COLD, RESTful web services. When RESTful web services have a deprovisioning containers when service demand is low freeing small code size they can be referred to as microservices. infrastructure to be harnessed by others. In this paper, we present Throughout this paper we refer to our code deployments as results from our comprehensive investigation into the factors mircoservices because they are small RESTful web services, but which influence microservice performance afforded by serverless the results of our work are applicable to any code asset deployed computing. We examine hosting implications related to to a serverless computing platform. We do not focus on defining infrastructure elasticity, load balancing, provisioning variation, the difference between a RESTful web service and a infrastructure retention, and memory reservation size. We identify microservice and leave this debate open. four states of serverless infrastructure including: provider cold, Serverless environments leverage operating system VM cold, container cold, and warm and demonstrate how containers such as Docker to deploy and scale microservices [6]. microservice performance varies up to 15x based on these states. Granular code deployment harnessing containers enables Keywords Resource Management and Performance; Serverless incremental, rapid scaling of server infrastructure surpassing the Computing; Function-as-a-Service; Provisioning Variation; elasticity afforded by dynamically scaling virtual machines I. INTRODUCTION (VMs). Cloud providers can load balance many small container placements across servers helping to minimize idle server Serverless computing recently has emerged as a compelling capacity better than with VM placements [7]. Cloud providers approach for hosting applications in the cloud [1] [2] [3]. While are responsible for creating, destroying, and load balancing Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) clouds provide users with requests across container pools. Given their small size and access to voluminous cloud resources, resource elasticity is footprint, containers can be aggregated and reprovisioned more managed at the virtual machine level, often resulting in over- rapidly than bulky VMs. To conserve server real estate and provisioning of resources leading to increased hosting costs, or energy, cloud providers allow infrastructure to go COLD, under-provisioning leading to poor application performance. deprovisioning containers when service demand is low freeing Serverless computing platforms provide Function(s)-as-a- infrastructure to be harnessed by others. These efficiencies hold Service (FaaS) by hosting individual callable functions. These promise for better server utilization leading to workload platforms promise reduced hosting costs, high availability, fault consolidation and energy savings. tolerance, and dynamic elasticity through automatic In this paper, we present results of our investigation focused provisioning and management of compute infrastructure [4]. on identifying factors that influence performance of Serverless computing platforms integrate support for microservices deployed to serverless computing platforms. Our scalability, availability, fault tolerance capabilities directly as primary goal for this study has been to identify factors features of the framework. Early adoption of serverless influencing microservice performance to inform practitioners computing has focused on deployment of lightweight stateless regarding the nuances of serverless computing infrastructure to services for image processing, static processing routines, speech enable better application deployments. We investigate processing, and event handlers for Internet-of-Things devices microservice performance implications related to: infrastructure [5]. The promised benefits, however, makes the platform very elasticity, load balancing, provisioning variation, infrastructure compelling for hosting any application. If serverless computing retention, and memory reservation size. delivers on its promises, it has the potential to fundamentally transform how we build and deploy software on the cloud, 1 A. Research Questions container image can be cached enabling additional container To support our investigation of factors influencing instances to be created more rapidly. Containers preserved in a microservice performance for serverless computing platforms, warm state can rapidly service incoming requests, but retaining we investigate the following research questions: infrastructure indefinitely is not feasible as cloud providers must share server infrastructure amongst all cloud users. We are RQ-1: (Elasticity) What are the performance implications for interested in quantifying how infrastructure is deprecated to leveraging elastic serverless computing infrastructure understand implications for performance as well as derive keep for microservice hosting? How is response time alive workloads to prevent microservices with strict SLAs from impacted for COLD vs WARM service requests? experiencing longer latencies. COLD service requests are sent by clients to microservice RQ-5: (Memory Reservations) What performance hosting platforms where the service hosting infrastructure must implications result from microservice memory be provisioned to respond to these requests. Four types of reservation size? How do memory reservations impact function invocations exist relating to infrastructure warm up for container placement? serverless computing infrastructure. These include: (1-provider cold) the very first service invocation for a given microservice Serverless computing platforms abstract most infrastructure code release made to the cloud provider, (2-VM cold) the very management configuration from end users. Platforms such as first service invocation made to a virtual machine (VM) hosting AWS Lambda and Google Cloud Functions allow users to one or more containers hosting microservice code, (3-container specify a memory reservation size. Users are then billed for each cold) the very first service invocation made to an operating function invocation based on memory utilization to the nearest system container hosting microservice code, and (4-warm) a tenth of a second. For example, Lambda functions can reserve repeated invocation to a preexisting container hosting from 128MB to 3008MB, while Google Cloud Functions can microservice code. reserve from 128MB to 2048MB. Azure functions allows users to create function apps. Function apps share hosting RQ-2: (Load Balancing) How does load balancing vary for infrastructure and memory for one or more user functions. hosting microservices in serverless computing? How Azure function app hosts are limited 1536MB maximum do computational requirements of service requests memory. Users do not reserve memory for individual functions impact load balancing, and ultimately microservice and are billed only for memory used in 128MB increments. One performance? advantage to Azure’s model is that users do not have to Serverless computing platforms automatically load balance understand the memory requirements of their functions. They service requests across hosting infrastructure. Cloud providers simply deploy their code, and infrastructure is automatically typically leverage round robin or load balancing based on CPU provisioned for functions up to the 1536MB limit. In contrast, load to distribute incoming resource requests [8]. For serverless users deploying microservices to Lambda or Google Cloud computing, we are interested in understanding how the Functions must specify a memory reservation size for function computational requirements of individual microservice requests deployment. These reservations are applied to Docker impact load balancing and ultimately performance. containers created to host user functions. Containers are created RQ-3: (Provisioning Variation) What microservice to host individual function deployments, and user functions may performance implications result from provisioning or may not share resources of underlying VMs. variation of container infrastructure?
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Serverless Computing in Financial Services High Performance Computing—With More Speed, Accuracy and Flexibility Authors
    Serverless computing in financial services High performance computing—with more speed, accuracy and flexibility Authors Michael Behrendt is a Distinguished Engineer in Neil Cowit is the Worldwide Cloud Offering the IBM Cloud development organization. He is Manager for High Performance Computing at responsible for IBM’s technical strategy around IBM. HPC has been a significant part of Neil’s serverless & Function-as-a-Service. 20-plus-year career within the financial services technology sector. He has held leadership In that context, he’s also the chief architect for and individual contributor roles in Product the IBM serverless offering, IBM Cloud Functions. Management, Development, Sales and Marketing. Before that, he was the chief architect of the core platform of IBM Bluemix and was one of the initial founding members incubating it. Michael has been working on cloud computing for more than 13 years and has 35 patents. He is located in the IBM Research & Development Laboratory in Boeblingen, Germany. | 2 | Contents Authors 02 Introduction 04 What issues can serverless computing help address? 06 Technical perspective 07 IBM Cloud Functions: Implementing serverless computing 08 Benefits of IBM Cloud Functions 08 Conclusion 09 Glossary 10 | 3 | Introduction If Mrs. Wallis Simpson were alive today and Wouldn’t it be terrific if we only had to solve static involved in financial services, she may very well or deterministic models as opposed to stochastic have modified her famous quote from “You can or probabilistic financial models? Imagine being never be too rich or too thin.” to “You can never able to cover all the possible contingencies in have too much compute capacity.” proportion to their likelihood.
    [Show full text]
  • Serverless in the Wild: Characterizing and Optimizing the Serverless Workload at a Large Cloud Provider
    Serverless in the Wild: Characterizing and Optimizing the Serverless Workload at a Large Cloud Provider Mohammad Shahrad, Rodrigo Fonseca, Íñigo Goiri, Gohar Chaudhry, Paul Batum, Jason Cooke, Eduardo Laureano, Colby Tresness, Mark Russinovich, and Ricardo Bianchini July 15, 2020 What is Serverless? •Very attractive abstraction: • Pay for Use • Infinite elasticity from 0 (and back) • No worry about servers • Provisioning, Reserving, Configuring, patching, managing •Most popular offering: Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) • Bounded-time functions with no persistent state among invocations • Upload code, get an endpoint, and go For the rest of this talk, Serverless = Serverless FaaS What is Serverless? Bare Metal VMs (IaaS) Containers Functions (FaaS) Unit of Scale Server VM Application/Pod Function Provisioning Ops DevOps DevOps Cloud Provider Init Time Days ~1 min Few seconds Few seconds Scaling Buy new hardware Allocate new VMs 1 to many, auto 0 to many, auto Typical Lifetime Years Hours Minutes O(100ms) Payment Per allocation Per allocation Per allocation Per use State Anywhere Anywhere Anywhere Elsewhere Serverless “…more than 20 percent of global enterprises will have deployed serverless computing technologies by 2020.” Gartner, Dec 2018 Serverless Source: CNCF Cloud Native Interactive Landscape https://landscape.cncf.io/format=serverless Serverless December 2019 “… we predict that (…) serverless computing will grow to dominate the future of cloud computing.” So what are people doing with FaaS? • Interesting Explorations • MapReduce (pywren)
    [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]
  • How Entle Core™ Reduces Risk with Proven Technologies
    How Entle Core™ reduces risk with proven technologies What is Entle Core™? cloud computing had become well-established, and serverless computing took that a step further to make On the basis of over a decade in the web elastic infrastructure even more accessible. development industry, Entle has developed a mature, In contrast to a constantly-running server or elastic risk-reducing, and highly performant website server group that responds to visitor requests (either architecture called Entle Core™. Websites built with using bare-metal physical machines, virtual machines, Entle Core™ are heavily optimised for performance, or containers), serverless functions use cloud native SEO, and ultimately, conversion. systems’ inherent elasticity to consume resources on To achieve this, Entle Core™ combines a serverless demand and in a fully abstracted manner. Server hosting architecture with the JAMstack (JavaScript, management is abstracted to the cloud provider’s APIs, and markup) pattern. expert team, in the same way that they are responsible for all their other cloud infrastructure (e.g. in AWS’ The key elements of Entle Core™ are: case, the underlying infrastructure for EC2, EKS, Aurora • Serverless hosting using AWS S3 storage and AWS or Redshift). This significantly reduces the DevOps Cloudfront CDN, and AWS Lamda to provide workload on the website developer and thereby dynamic functionality; reduces the risk associated with designing, testing, and maintaining one’s own server setup. Serverless is the next step in the evolution of A static site
    [Show full text]
  • Serverless Computing: an Investigation of Factors Influencing Microservice Performance
    Serverless Computing: An Investigation of Factors Influencing Microservice Performance Wes Lloyd1, Shruti Ramesh4, Swetha Chinthalapati2, Lan Ly3, Shrideep Pallickara5 5 Institute of Technology 4 Department of Computer Science University of Washington Microsoft Colorado State University Tacoma, Washington USA Redmond, Washington USA Fort Collins, Colorado USA 1wlloyd, 2swethach, [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract— Serverless computing platforms provide driving a paradigm shift rivaling a scale not seen since the function(s)-as-a-Service (FaaS) to end users while promising advent of cloud computing itself! reduced hosting costs, high availability, fault tolerance, and dynamic elasticity for hosting individual functions known as Fundamentally different than application hosting with IaaS microservices. Serverless Computing environments, unlike or Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) clouds, with serverless Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud platforms, abstract computing, applications are decomposed into many infrastructure management including creation of virtual machines microservices, which are essentially disparate functions. (VMs), operating system containers, and request load balancing Serverless environments leverage operating system containers from users. To conserve cloud server capacity and energy, cloud such as Docker to deploy and scale microservices [6]. Granular providers allow hosting infrastructure to go COLD, code deployment harnessing containers enables incremental, deprovisioning containers when service demand is low freeing rapid scaling of server infrastructure surpassing the elasticity infrastructure to be harnessed by others. In this paper, we present afforded by dynamically scaling virtual machines (VMs). Cloud results from our comprehensive investigation into the factors providers can load balance many small container placements which influence microservice performance afforded by serverless across servers helping to minimize idle server capacity better computing.
    [Show full text]
  • DEMYSTIFYING NOOPS and SERVERLESS COMPUTING Purpose
    Innovation Committee, Chief Information Officers Council WHITE PAPER: DEMYSTIFYING NOOPS AND SERVERLESS COMPUTING Purpose The purpose of this white paper is to provide an overview of NoOps and serverless computing for CIOs in the federal government and discuss the potential impact of these emerging trends on how agencies develop software and deliver services. Background Serverless computing is an emerging cloud computing model whereby cloud providers manage IT infrastructure and users are charged only for the resources they use.1 The growth of serverless computing has given rise to the concept of NoOps, whereby service providers automate and manage IT infrastructure and operations to such an extent that IT operations staff can focus on higher-value work in the software development life cycle. NoOps is more of a theoretical concept than a development practice at this time, with few commercial IT organizations adopting a development approach that completely automates IT operations.2 The history of cloud computing is characterized by increasing levels of abstraction where responsibilities have shifted from consumers to service providers. Companies and government agencies have moved from managing their own on-premise and agency-owned equipment, to adopting Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) models that abstract physical hardware, to Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) models that abstract operating systems. Companies are now experimenting with and implementing serverless computing architectures, which further abstract server and infrastructure management away from consumers and increase the speed to deploy 3 microservices. Serverless is similar to PaaS models in that in both, consumers do not have to worry about patching or monitoring individual servers.
    [Show full text]
  • Lightweight Isolation for Efficient Stateful Serverless Computing
    FAASM: Lightweight Isolation for Efficient Stateful Serverless Computing Simon Shillaker and Peter Pietzuch, Imperial College London https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc20/presentation/shillaker This paper is included in the Proceedings of the 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference. July 15–17, 2020 978-1-939133-14-4 Open access to the Proceedings of the 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference is sponsored by USENIX. FAASM: Lightweight Isolation for Efficient Stateful Serverless Computing Simon Shillaker Peter Pietzuch Imperial College London Imperial College London Abstract Existing platforms such as Google Cloud Functions [32], Serverless computing is an excellent fit for big data process- IBM Cloud Functions [39], Azure Functions [50] and AWS ing because it can scale quickly and cheaply to thousands of Lambda [5] isolate functions in ephemeral, stateless contain- parallel functions. Existing serverless platforms isolate func- ers. The use of containers as an isolation mechanisms in- tions in ephemeral, stateless containers, preventing them from troduces two challenges for data-intensive applications, data directly sharing memory. This forces users to duplicate and access overheads and the container resource footprint. serialise data repeatedly, adding unnecessary performance Data access overheads are caused by the stateless nature of and resource costs. We believe that a new lightweight iso- the container-based approach, which forces state to be main- lation approach is needed, which supports sharing memory tained externally, e.g. in object stores such as Amazon S3 [6], directly between functions and reduces resource overheads. or passed between function invocations. Both options in- We introduce Faaslets, a new isolation abstraction for high- cur costs due to duplicating data in each function, repeated performance serverless computing.
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing Serverless to Containers with Google Cloud Run
    Bringing serverless to containers with Google Cloud Run Martin Omander Zoë Omander @martinomander @zoe_omander Dec 3, 2019 Lily started the first Pet Theory clinic 12 years ago Lily, veterinarian, Founder of Pet Theory IT growing pains... The appointment system is down... Why can’t I change my appointment online? Michael, client Patrick, IT support I have to call insurance companies all the time. I wasn’t able to send any invoices yesterday. The phone just kept ringing. Deirdre, veterinarian Lisa, receptionist Solid IT is a requirement for my business. As a pilot project, let’s fix the invoice problem first. Lily, veterinarian, Ruby, Founder of Pet Theory Consultant There are two paths to modern cloud systems. Z Containers: Serverless: Docker, Kubernetes FaaS, PaaS Fine-grained control. No infrastructure management. Use any language, binary or library. Fully managed security. Run your code in many places. Pay only for usage. Setup and maintenance work. App is not portable. Provision resources ahead of time. Can’t use any language. Pay for idle resources. Can’t use any binary or library. What if we choose the wrong path? I have read about a new trend in cloud computing... Patrick, IT support Ruby, Consultant Containers Serverless Containers: Serverless: Docker, Kubernetes FaaS, PaaS Fine-grained control. No infrastructure management. Use any language, binary or library. Fully managed security. Run your code in many places. Pay only for usage. Setup and maintenance work. App is not portable. Provision resources ahead of time. Can’t use any language. Pay for idle resources. Can’t use any binary or library.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Serverless Computing Frameworks Based on Kubernetes
    Aalto University School of Science Degree Programme of Computer Science and Engineering Sunil Kumar Mohanty Evaluation of Serverless Computing Frame- works Based on Kubernetes Master's Thesis Espoo, July 6, 2018 Supervisor: Professor Mario Di Francesco, Aalto University Instructor: Gopika Premsankar M.Sc. (Tech.) Aalto University School of Science ABSTRACT OF Degree Programme of Computer Science and Engineering MASTER'S THESIS Author: Sunil Kumar Mohanty Title: Evaluation of Serverless Computing Frameworks Based on Kubernetes Date: July 6, 2018 Pages: 76 Professorship: Mobile Computing, Services and Secu- Code: SCI3045 rity Supervisor: Professor Mario Di Francesco Instructor: Gopika Premsankar M.Sc. (Tech.) Recent advancements in virtualization and software architectures have led to the birth of the new paradigm of serverless computing. Serverless computing, also known as function-as-a-service, allows developers to deploy functions as comput- ing units without worrying about the underlying infrastructure. Moreover, no resources are allocated or billed until a function is invoked. Thus, the major ben- efits of serverless computing are reduced developer concern about infrastructure, reduced time to market and lower cost. Currently, serverless computing is gener- ally available through various public cloud service providers. However, there are certain bottlenecks on public cloud platforms, such as vendor lock-in, computa- tion restrictions and regulatory restrictions. Thus, there is a growing interest to implement serverless computing on a private infrastructure. One of the preferred ways of implementing serverless computing is through the use of containers. A container-based solution allows to utilize features of existing orchestration frame- works, such as Kubernetes. This thesis discusses the implementation of serverless computing on Kubernetes.
    [Show full text]
  • Faasdom: a Benchmark Suitefor Serverless Computing
    CC-BY 4.0. This is the author’s preprint version of the camera-ready article. A full version of this paper is published in the proceedings of 14th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-Based Systems (DEBS 2020). FaaSdom: A Benchmark Suite for Serverless Computing Pascal Maissen Pascal Felber Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Fribourg, Switzerland University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland [email protected] [email protected] Peter Kropf Valerio Schiavoni Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Edge Master Serverless computing has become a major trend among cloud User Worker interface function main() { code providers. With serverless computing, developers fully dele- return { payload:'Hello!' code gate the task of managing the servers, dynamically allocating API }; code } the required resources, as well as handling availability and gateway … Dispatcher Event queue Worker Worker fault-tolerance matters to the cloud provider. In doing so, Cloud event … sources code code code code developers can solely focus on the application logic of their software, which is then deployed and completely managed Figure 1: Typical FaaS architecture. The main aspects in the cloud. to benchmark are: performance of a worker (i.e., execu- Despite its increasing popularity, not much is known re- tion speed of a function) and quality of the auto-scaling garding the actual system performance achievable on the mechanism (e.g., allocation of new VMs, how to handle currently available serverless platforms. Specifically, it is flash-crowds [36]).
    [Show full text]
  • Ambitious Data Science Can Be Painless
    Harvard Data Science Review • Issue 1.1, Summer 2019 Ambitious Data Science Can Be Painless Hatef Monajemi, Riccardo Murri, Eric Jonas, Percy Liang, Victoria Stodden, David Donoho Published on: Sep 29, 2019 DOI: 10.1162/99608f92.02c552 License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0) Harvard Data Science Review • Issue 1.1, Summer 2019 Ambitious Data Science Can Be Painless ABSTRACT Modern data science research, at the cutting edge, can involve massive computational experimentation; an ambitious PhD in computational fields may conduct experiments consuming several million CPU hours. Traditional computing practices, in which researchers use laptops, PCs, or campus-resident resources with shared policies, are awkward or inadequate for experiments at the massive scale and varied scope that we now see in the most ambitious data science. On the other hand, modern cloud computing promises seemingly unlimited computational resources that can be custom configured, and seems to offer a powerful new venue for ambitious data-driven science. Exploiting the cloud fully, the amount of raw experimental work that could be completed in a fixed amount of calendar time ought to expand by several orders of magnitude. Still, at the moment, starting a massive experiment using cloud resources from scratch is commonly perceived as cumbersome, problematic, and prone to rapid ‘researcher burnout.’ New software stacks are emerging that render massive cloud-based experiments relatively painless, thereby allowing a proliferation of ambitious experiments for scientific discovery. Such stacks simplify experimentation by systematizing experiment definition, automating distribution and management of all tasks, and allowing easy harvesting of results and documentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Volunteer Down: How COVID-19 Created the Largest Idling Supercomputer on Earth
    future internet Perspective Volunteer Down: How COVID-19 Created the Largest Idling Supercomputer on Earth Nane Kratzke Department for Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Lübeck University of Applied Sciences, 23562 Lübeck, Germany; [email protected] Received: 25 May 2020; Accepted: 3 June 2020; Published: 6 June 2020 Abstract: From close to scratch, the COVID-19 pandemic created the largest volunteer supercomputer on earth. Sadly, processing resources assigned to the corresponding Folding@home project cannot be shared with other volunteer computing projects efficiently. Consequently, the largest supercomputer had significant idle times. This perspective paper investigates how the resource sharing of future volunteer computing projects could be improved. Notably, efficient resource sharing has been optimized throughout the last ten years in cloud computing. Therefore, this perspective paper reviews the current state of volunteer and cloud computing to analyze what both domains could learn from each other. It turns out that the disclosed resource sharing shortcomings of volunteer computing could be addressed by technologies that have been invented, optimized, and adapted for entirely different purposes by cloud-native companies like Uber, Airbnb, Google, or Facebook. Promising technologies might be containers, serverless architectures, image registries, distributed service registries, and all have one thing in common: They already exist and are all tried and tested in large web-scale deployments. Keywords: volunteer computing; cloud computing; grid computing; HPC; supercomputing; microservice; nanoservice; container; cloud-native; serverless; platform; lessons-learned; COVID-19 1. Introduction On 28 April 2020, Greg Bowman—director of the volunteer computing (VC) project Folding@home— posted this on Twitter https://twitter.com/drGregBowman/status/1255142727760543744: @Folding@home is continuing its growth spurt! There are now 3.5 M devices participating, including 2.8 M CPUs (19 M cores!) and 700 K GPUs.
    [Show full text]