skip to main content
research-article

QoS-Aware scheduling in heterogeneous datacenters with paragon

Published:20 December 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Large-scale datacenters (DCs) host tens of thousands of diverse applications each day. However, interference between colocated workloads and the difficulty of matching applications to one of the many hardware platforms available can degrade performance, violating the quality of service (QoS) guarantees that many cloud workloads require. While previous work has identified the impact of heterogeneity and interference, existing solutions are computationally intensive, cannot be applied online, and do not scale beyond a few applications.

We present Paragon, an online and scalable DC scheduler that is heterogeneity- and interference-aware. Paragon is derived from robust analytical methods, and instead of profiling each application in detail, it leverages information the system already has about applications it has previously seen. It uses collaborative filtering techniques to quickly and accurately classify an unknown incoming workload with respect to heterogeneity and interference in multiple shared resources. It does so by identifying similarities to previously scheduled applications. The classification allows Paragon to greedily schedule applications in a manner that minimizes interference and maximizes server utilization. After the initial application placement, Paragon monitors application behavior and adjusts the scheduling decisions at runtime to avoid performance degradations. Additionally, we design ARQ, a multiclass admission control protocol that constrains application waiting time. ARQ queues applications in separate classes based on the type of resources they need and avoids long queueing delays for easy-to-satisfy workloads in highly-loaded scenarios. Paragon scales to tens of thousands of servers and applications with marginal scheduling overheads in terms of time or state.

We evaluate Paragon with a wide range of workload scenarios, on both small and large-scale systems, including 1,000 servers on EC2. For a 2,500-workload scenario, Paragon enforces performance guarantees for 91% of applications, while significantly improving utilization. In comparison, heterogeneity-oblivious, interference-oblivious, and least-loaded schedulers only provide similar guarantees for 14%, 11%, and 3% of workloads. The differences are more striking in oversubscribed scenarios where resource efficiency is more critical.

References

  1. Alameldeen, A. R. and Wood, D. A. 2006. IPC considered harmful for multiprocessor workloads. IEEE Micro (Special Issue on Computer Architecture Simulation and Modeling). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Amazon EC2. http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Banga, G., Druschel, P., and Mogul, J. C. 1999. Resource containers: A new facility for resource management in server systems. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Barroso, L. 2011. Warehouse-scale computing: entering the teenage decade. In Proceedings of ISCA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Barroso, L. and Hoelzle, U. 2009. The Datacenter as a Computer: An Introduction to the Design of Warehouse-Scale Machines. Morgan and Claypool. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bell, R. M., Koren, Y., and Volinsky, C. 2007. The BellKor 2008 solution to the Netflix Prize. Tech. rep., AT&T Labs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertsimas, D., Gamarnik, D., and Tsitsiklis, J. N. 2001. Performance of multiclass Markovian queueing networks via piecewise linear Lyapunov functions. Ann. Appl. Probab. 11, 1384--1428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Bienia, C., Kumar, S., Singh, J. P., and Li, K. 2008. The PARSEC benchmark suite: Characterization and architectural implications. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bottou, L. 2010. Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Statistics (COMPSTAT).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Calder, B., Wang, J., Ogus, A., Nilakantan, N., Skjolsvold, A., McKelvie, S., Xu, Y., Srivastav, S., Wu, J., Simitci, H., Haridas, J., Uddaraju, C., Khatri, H., Edwards, A., Bedekar, V., Mainali, S., Abbasi, R., Agarwal, A., ul Haq, M. F., ul Haq, M. I., Bhardwaj, D., Dayanand, S., Adusumilli, A., McNett, M., Sankaran, S., Manivannan, K., and Rigas, L. 2011. Windows Azure storage: A highly available cloud storage service with strong consistency. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Chase, J., Anderson, D., Thakar, P., Vahdat, A., and Doyle, R. 2001. Managing energy and server resources in hosting centers. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Craeynest, K. V., Jaleel, A., Eeckhout, L., Narvaez, P., and Emer, J. 2012. Scheduling heterogeneous multi-cores through performance impact estimation (PIE). In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Dai, J. G. 1995. On positive Harris recurrence of multiclass queueing networks: A unified approach via fluid limit models. Ann. Appl. Probab. 5, 49--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Dai, J. G. 1996. A fluid-limit model criterion for instability of multiclass queueing networks. Ann. Appl. Probab. 6, 751--757.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Delimitrou, C. and Kozyrakis, C. 2013a. iBench: Quantifying interference for datacenter applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Delimitrou, C. and Kozyrakis, C. 2013b. Paragon: QoS-aware scheduling for heterogeneous datacenters. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Delimitrou, C. and Kozyrakis, C. 2013c. The Netflix challenge: Datacenter edition. IEEE Comput. Archit. Lett. (June). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Fedorova, A., Seltzer, M., and Smith, M. D. 2007. Improving performance isolation on chip multiprocessors via an operating system scheduler. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Parallel Architecture and Compilation Techniques (PACT). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Gamarnik, D. 2000. On deciding stability of scheduling policies in queuing systems. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. 467--476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Google Compute Engine GCE. http://cloud.google.com/products/compute-engine.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghodsi, A., Zaharia, M., Hindman, B., Konwinski, A., Shenker, S., and Stoica, I. 2011. Dominant resource fairness: Fair allocation of multiple resource types. In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Gmach, D., Rolia, J., Cherkasova, L., and Kemper, A. 2007. Workload analysis and demand prediction of enterprise data center applications. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Govindan, S., Liu, J., Kansal, A., and Sivasubramaniam, A. 2011. Cuanta: Quantifying effects of shared on-chip resource interference for consolidated virtual machines. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hamilton, J. 2009. Internet-scale service infrastructure efficiency. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Hamilton, J. 2010. Cost of power in large-scale data centers. http://perspectives.mvdirona.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Hasenbein, J. J. 1998. Stability, capacity, and scheduling of multiclass queuing networks. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Hindman, B., Konwinski, A., Zaharia, M., Ghodsi, A., Joseph, A. D., Katz, R., Shenker, S., and Stoica, I. 2011. Mesos: A platform for fine-grained resource sharing in the data center. In Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jaleel, A., Mattina, M., and Jacob, B. L. 2006. Last level cache (LLC) performance of data mining workloads on a CMP—A case study of parallel bioinformatics workloads. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA-12).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz, J. and Lindell, Y. 2007. Introduction to Modern Cryptography. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Kiwiel, K. C. 2001. Convergence and efficiency of subgradient methods for quasiconvex minimization. Math. Program. (Series A), 90, 1, 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Kozyrakis, C., Kansal, A., Sankar, S., and Vaid, K. 2010. Server engineering insights for large-scale online services. IEEE Micro 30, 4, 8--19. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MM.2010.73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Leverich, J. and Kozyrakis, C. 2010. On the energy (in)efficiency of Hadoop clusters. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 44, 1, 61--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Lin, J. and Kolcz, A. 2012. Large-scale machine learning at Twitter. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Mars, J. and Tang, L. 2013. Whare-map: heterogeneity in “homogeneous” warehouse-scale computers. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Mars, J., Tang, L., and Hundt, R. 2011. Heterogeneity in “homogeneous”; warehouse-scale computers: A performance opportunity. IEEE Comput. Archit. Lett. 10, 2, 29--32. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/L-CA.2011.14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Meisner, D., Sadler, C. M., Barroso, L. A., Weber, W.-D., and Wenisch, T. F. 2011. Power management of online data-intensive services. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Miller, B. L. 1969. A queuing reward system with several customer classes. Manage. Sci. 16, 3, 234--245.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Narayanan, R., Ozisikyilmaz, B., Zambreno, J., Memik, G., and Choudhary, A. N. 2006. MineBench: A benchmark suite for data mining workloads. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Nathuji, R., Isci, C., and Gorbatov, E. 2007. Exploiting platform heterogeneity for power efficient data centers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Nathuji, R., Kansal, A., and Ghaffarkhah, A. 2010. Q-Clouds: Managing performance interference effects for QoS-aware clouds. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys'10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Novakovi&cgrave;, D., Vasi&cgrave;, N., Novakovi&cgrave;, S., Kosti&cgrave;, D., and Bianchini, R. 2013. DeepDive: Transparently identifying and managing performance interference in virtualized environments. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Rackspace. Open Cloud. http://www.rackspace.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Rajaraman, A. and Ullman, J. 2011. Textbook on Mining of Massive Datasets. Rightscale. https://aws.amazon.com/solution-providers/isv/rightscale.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanchez, D. and Kozyrakis, C. 2011. Vantage: Scalable and efficient fine-grain cache partitioning. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Symposium in Computer Architecture (ISCA-38). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Schein, A., Popescul, A., Ungar, L., and Pennock, D. 2002. Methods and metrics for cold-start recommendations. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Schwarzkopf, M., Konwinski, A., Abd-El-Malek, M., and Wilkes, J. 2013. Omega: Flexible, scalable schedulers for large compute clusters. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys'13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Shelepov, D., Alcaide, J. C. S., Jeffery, S., Fedorova, A., Perez, N., Huang, Z. F., Blagodurov, S., and Kumar, V. 2009. HASS: A scheduler for heterogeneous multicore systems. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 43, 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Shen, Z., Subbiah, S., Gu, X., and Wilkes, J. 2011. CloudScale: elastic resource scaling for multi-tenant cloud systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Sun, J., Xie, Y., Zhang, H., and Faloutsos, C. 2008. Less is more: Compact matrix decomposition for large sparse graphs. J. Stat. Anal. Data Mining 1, 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Tanenbaum, A. S. 2007. Modern Operating Systems. 3rd Ed. Peason Education, Inc. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Vasić, N., Novaković, D., Miučin, S., Kostić, D., and Bianchini, R. 2012. Deja vu: accelerating resource allocation in virtualized environments. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. vMotion. Migrate VMs with Zero Downtime. http//www.vmware.com/products/vmotion.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. VMWare-DRS. 2012. Distributed resource scheduler: design, implementation and lessons learned. VMware Tech. J. 1, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. VMWare vSphere. http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Weng, L.-T., Yue, X., Yuefeng, L., and Nayak, R. 2008. Exploiting item taxonomy for solving cold-start problem in recommendation making. In Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Wenisch, T. F., Wunderlich, R. E., Ferdman, M., Ailamaki, A., Falsafi, B., and Hoe, J. C. 2006. SimFlex: Statistical sampling of computer system simulation. IEEE MICRO 26, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Windows Azure. http://www.windowsazure.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Witten, I. H., Frank, E., and Holmes, G. 2011. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. 3rd Ed. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Woo, S. C., Ohara, M., Torrie, E., Singh, J. P., and Gupta, A. 1995. The SPLASH-2 programs: Characterization and methodological considerations. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Xenserver. 6.1. http://www.citrix.com/xenserver/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Yang, H., Breslow, A., Mars, J., and Tang, L. 2013. Bubble-flux: Precise online QoS management for increased utilization in warehouse scale computers. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Zaharia, M., Chowdhury, M., Das, T., Dave, A., Ma, J., McCauley, M., Franklin, M. J., Shenker, S., and Stoica, I. 2012. Spark: Cluster computing with working sets. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang, X., Tune, E., Hagmann, R., Jnagal, R., Gokhale, V., and Wilkes, J. 2013. CPI2: CPU performance isolation for shared compute clusters. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys'13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Zhang, Z.-K., Liu, C., Zhang, Y.-C., and Zhou, T. 2010. Solving the cold-start problem in recommender systems with social tags. arXiv:1004.3732v2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhu, X., Young, D., Watson, B. J., Wang, Z., Rolia, J., Singhal, S., Mckee, B., Hyser, C., Gmach, D., Gardner, R., Christian, T., and Cherkasova, L. 2009. 1000 Islands: An integrated approach to resource management for virtualized datacenters. J. Cluster Comput. 12, 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. QoS-Aware scheduling in heterogeneous datacenters with paragon

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM Transactions on Computer Systems
              ACM Transactions on Computer Systems  Volume 31, Issue 4
              December 2013
              90 pages
              ISSN:0734-2071
              EISSN:1557-7333
              DOI:10.1145/2542150
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2013 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 20 December 2013
              • Revised: 1 September 2013
              • Accepted: 1 September 2013
              • Received: 1 May 2013
              Published in tocs Volume 31, Issue 4

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader