A performance comparison of container-based technologies for the Cloud

Cloud computing allows to utilize servers in efficient and scalable ways through exploitation of virtualization technology. In the Infrastructure-as-a-Server (IaaS) Cloud model, many virtualized servers (instances) can be created on a single physical machine. There are many such Cloud providers that are now in widespread use offering such capabilities. However, Cloud computing has overheads and can constrain the scalability and flexibility, especially when diverse users with different needs wish to use the Cloud resources. To accommodate such communities, an alternative to Cloud computing and virtualization of whole servers that is gaining widespread adoption is micro-hosting services and container-based solutions. Container-based technologies such as Docker allow hosting of micro-services on Cloud infrastructures. These enable bundling of applications and data in a manner that allows their easy deployment and subsequent utilization. Docker is just one of the many such solutions that have been put forward. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast a range of existing container-based technologies for the Cloud and evaluate their pros and cons and overall performances. The OpenStack-based Australia-wide National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources (NeCTAR) Research Cloud (www.nectar.org.au) was used for this purpose. We describe the design of the experiments and benchmarks that were chosen and relate these to literature review findings.

[1]  Pascal Bouvry,et al.  HPC Performance and Energy-Efficiency of Xen, KVM and VMware Hypervisors , 2013, 2013 25th International Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance Computing.

[2]  Dirk Merkel,et al.  Docker: lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment , 2014 .

[3]  Ravishankar K. Iyer,et al.  A Performance Evaluation of Sequence Alignment Software in Virtualized Environments , 2014, 2014 14th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing.

[4]  Timothy Wood,et al.  A component-based performance comparison of four hypervisors , 2013, 2013 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2013).

[5]  Jim Groom,et al.  Docker - Build, Ship, and Run Any App, Anywhere , 2014 .

[6]  Kang G. Shin,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Virtualization Technologies for Server Consolidation , 2007 .

[7]  Dharmesh Kakadia,et al.  Virtualization vs Containerization to Support PaaS , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering.

[8]  Larry L. Peterson,et al.  Container-based operating system virtualization: a scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors , 2007, EuroSys '07.

[9]  Eric W. Biederman,et al.  Multiple Instances of the Global Linux Namespaces , 2010 .

[10]  Nashwa Abdelbaki,et al.  Performance evaluation and comparison of the top market virtualization hypervisors , 2013, 2013 8th International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems (ICCES).

[11]  César A. F. De Rose,et al.  Performance Evaluation of Container-Based Virtualization for High Performance Computing Environments , 2013, 2013 21st Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Processing.

[12]  Ramakrishnan Rajamony,et al.  An updated performance comparison of virtual machines and Linux containers , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS).

[13]  Nathan Regola,et al.  Recommendations for Virtualization Technologies in High Performance Computing , 2010, 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science.