1 / 26

Live Migration of Virtual Machines

Live Migration of Virtual Machines. Christopher Clark, Keir Fraser, Steven Hand, Jacob Gorm Hansen†,Eric Jul†, Christian Limpach , Ian Pratt, Andrew Warfield University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory † Department of Computer Science ,University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

gretel
Télécharger la présentation

Live Migration of Virtual Machines

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Live Migration of Virtual Machines Christopher Clark, Keir Fraser, Steven Hand, Jacob GormHansen†,Eric Jul†, Christian Limpach, Ian Pratt, Andrew Warfield University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory † Department of Computer Science ,University of Copenhagen, Denmark USENIX NSDI ‘05

  2. Introduction • Operating system virtualization has attracted considerable interest in recent years -In data Centers, cluster computing communities • allows many OS instances to run concurrently on a single physical machine • Migratingan entire OS and all of its applications as one unit • Compared to the process migration (residual dependencies)

  3. Introduction • Live Migration • Without interfering the network connection • Allows a separation of concerns between the users and operator of a datacenter or cluster. • Allowing separation of hardware and software considerations

  4. Introduction • Downtime • services are entirely unavailable • Total migration time • during which state on both machines is synchronized and which hence may affect reliability • This paper use the “pre-copy” approach to achieve live migration and target on decreasing the downtime (implemented on Xen)

  5. Design • Network Generate an ARP reply from the migrated host, advertising that the IP has moved to a new location. • Storage Use a network-attached storage (NAS) device Do not need to migrate disk storage

  6. Design • Memory Transfer • Push phase • Stop-and-copy phase • Pull phase • most practical solutions select one or two of the three phases • pure stop-and-copy, pure demand • This paper uses iterative push phase with a typically very short stop-and-copy phase.

  7. Related Work • Shutdown the VM • Pre-Copy • VMware

  8. Related Work • Post-Copy Live Migration of Virtual Machines • Michael R. Hines, Umesh Deshpande, and Kartik Gopalan Computer Science, Binghamton University (SUNY) ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS VEE’09

  9. Design Overview

  10. WritableWorking Sets • Some pages will seldom or never be modified and hence are good candidates for pre-copy • Some will be written often and so should best be transferred via stop-and-copy => WritableWorkingSets

  11. WritableWorking Sets

  12. WritableWorking Sets

  13. Dynamic Rate-Limiting • Dynamically adapt the bandwidth limit during each pre-copying round • The administrator selects a minimum(m) and a maximum(M) bandwidth limit • The first pre-copy round transfers pages at the minimum bandwidth m

  14. Dynamic Rate-Limiting • Dirtying rate = (the number of pages dirtied in the previous round) / (duration of the previous round) • Bandwidth rate for next round = Dirtying rate + 50 Mbits/sec • Stop pre-copy when • Calculated rate > M • Less than 256KB remains to be tranferred

  15. Some implementation issues • Rapid Page Dirtying • Do not need to always transfer hot pages • Freeing Page Cache Pages • In the first round • Stunning Rogue Processes • Limit each process to 40 write faults each time

  16. Stunning Rogue Processes

  17. Evaluation • Dell PE-2650 server-class machines • dual Xeon 2GHz CPUs • 2GB memory • connected via Gigabit Ethernet • Storage: iSCSIprotocol NAS • XenLinux 2.4.27

  18. a. SimpleWebServer • Apache 1.3 web server • Continuously serving a single 512KB file • memory allocation: 800MB • Initially rate limited to 100Mbit/sec • 776MB memory to be transferred in the first round • 165ms outage

  19. a. SimpleWeb Server

  20. b.ComplexWebWorkload:SPECweb99 • memory allocation: 800MB • 30% require dynamic content generation • 16% are HTTP POST operations • 0.5% execute a CGI script • The server generates access and POST logs • 210ms outage

  21. b.ComplexWebWorkload:SPECweb99

  22. c. Low-Latency Server: Quake 3 • a multiplayer on-line game server • a virtual machine with 64MB of memory • Six players joined the game and started to play within a shared arena • transfers so little data (148KB) in the last round • Downtime: 60ms

  23. c. Low-Latency Server: Quake 3

  24. d. A DiabolicalWorkload: MMuncher • a virtual machine is writing to memory faster than can be transferred • Memory: 512MB • a simple C program that writes constantly to a 256MB • Downtime: 3.5 seconds

  25. d. A DiabolicalWorkload: MMuncher

  26. Conclusion • A pre-copy live migration method on Xen • Concern about WWS • Dynamic network-bandwidth adaption • realistic server workloads such as SPECweb99 can be migrated with just 210ms downtime • a Quake3 game server is migrated with an imperceptible 60ms outage

More Related