1 / 35

improving the Scalability of Data Center Networks with Traffic-aware Virtual Machine Placement

B99705021 資管三 李奕德 http://ppt.cc/41rH. improving the Scalability of Data Center Networks with Traffic-aware Virtual Machine Placement. Outline . Introduction Background Virtual machine placement Algorithm Algorithm evaluation Result Discussion and future work. introduction.

bran
Télécharger la présentation

improving the Scalability of Data Center Networks with Traffic-aware Virtual Machine Placement

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. B99705021 資管三 李奕德 http://ppt.cc/41rH improving the Scalability of Data Center Networks with Traffic-aware Virtual Machine Placement

  2. Outline • Introduction • Background • Virtual machine placement • Algorithm • Algorithm evaluation • Result • Discussion and future work

  3. introduction • Scalability issue • Aim to solve different problem - Dcell, Bcube, PortLand, VL2…… • No thinking of traffic issue - high traffic from end to end

  4. introduction • three character of all traffic • average pairwise traffic rate & end-to-end cost has low correlation • Uneven between VMs • Stays almost the same • Traffic-aware placement may be beneficial

  5. introduction • Traffic-aware VM Placement Problem (TVMPP) • given: traffic matrix , cost matrix • Goal: minimize cost • Cost can be: Total switch used/Compute Time • An algorithm that solve the NP-hard problem • Architecture difference

  6. NP- hard • NP: by nondeterministic algorithms in polynomial time • nondeterministic -Every “guess by hunch” is right • at least as hard as the hardest problems in NP

  7. Outline • Introduction • Background • Virtual machine placement • Algorithm • Algorithm evaluation • Result • Discussion and future work

  8. Background – traffic analysis • Data set I : • IBM Global Services’ data warehouse • About 17000 virtual machines • Data set II: • Server cluster • About Hundreds of virtual machines • round-trip latency measurement at 68 VM

  9. Background- traffic analysis • Uneven between VMs • 80% of VM’s traffic < 800kb/sec • 4% of VM’s traffic > 8mb/sec

  10. Background- traffic analysis • Stays almost the same

  11. Background- traffic analysis • Low correlation between average pairwise traffic rate & end-to-end cost • Correlation : -0.32

  12. Background - Achitecture • Old style

  13. Background - Achitecture • VL2

  14. Background - Achitecture • Portland • Bcube

  15. Outline • Introduction • Background • Virtual machine placement • Algorithm • Algorithm evaluation • Result • Discussion and future work

  16. Virtual machine placement- cost function • n VM to assign • n slot for VM • static and single-path routing • Cost and traffic matrix from historical data

  17. Virtual machine placement- cost function • is equivalent of finding • Dummy VM is assigned when no. slot > no. VM

  18. Virtual machine placement- complexity • Quadratic Assignment Problem (NP-hard) • Impossible to find optimality when size > 15 • TVMPP is a special case of QAP • reduction from Balanced Minimum K-cut Problem (BMKP) • BMKP: extended problem from the Minimum Bisection Problem (MBP) • BMKP & MBP are NP-hard

  19. Outline • Introduction • Background • Virtual machine placement • Algorithm • Algorithm evaluation • Result • Discussion and future work

  20. Algorithm • approximation algorithm Cluster-and-Cut • Divide VM into VM cluster • Divide slot into slot cluster • Put VM cluster into slot cluster • A smaller problem • Feasible when size is sufficient small

  21. Algorithm – pseudo code

  22. Algorithm – pseudo code

  23. Algorithm - complexity • Complexity determine by SlotClustering and VMMinKcut • Slotclustering: O(nk) • VMMinKcut: O(n4) • Total complexity = O(n4)

  24. Outline • Introduction • Background • Virtual machine placement • Algorithm • Algorithm evaluation • Result • Discussion and future work

  25. Algorithm evaluation- cluster and cut • Cluster and cut VS. other benchmark algorithms • Local Optimal Pairwise Interchange (LOPI) • Simulated Annealing (SA) • hybrid traffic model • Gravity model • compute the GLB for each settings

  26. Algorithm evaluation - result

  27. Outline • Introduction • Background • Virtual machine placement • Algorithm • Algorithm evaluation • Result • Discussion and future work

  28. Result • Cost matrix • Compare with random assign

  29. Result • Traffic is assumed to be in normal distribution • Variance is change to show difference • Different architecture & variance affect result

  30. Result • View as VM cluster • GLB prediction

  31. Result • GLB prediction VS. optimal solution

  32. conclusion • Thing that brings better performance: - bigger variance - smaller cluster (less VM in a group) - Architecture difference (generally) Bcube > tree > fat-tree > VL2 • Good scenario: multiple service in a data center • Bad scenario: single service / map-reduce

  33. Outline • Introduction • Background • Virtual machine placement • Algorithm • Algorithm evaluation • Result • Discussion and future work

  34. Discussion and future • Dynamic VM placement • Other VM placement with different goal

  35. Thank you for your attention Q&A

More Related