Better energy-delay tradeoff via server resource pooling

Multi-core architectures have supplanted single core schemes, because they reduce energy consumption by allowing lower clock frequencies. They provide the additional, less exploited benefit of allowing a trade-off between energy consumption and delay by turning off subsets of cores. We investigate what the benefits of this transition are in managing the tradeoff between energy consumption and delay performance, and whether heterogeneity brings additional benefits to outweigh its increased complexity. To do this, we study optimal sleep policies in two settings: switching of homogeneous cores on a fast timescale, which models multiple cores in a CPU, and switching of heterogeneous cores on a slow timescale, which models servers of different generations in a data center. In the homogeneous case, we show the optimal policy is monotone hysteretic, and that the performance is less sensitive to load estimation errors at the design stage when at least two cores are present. In the heterogeneous case, we provide a low complexity algorithm to minimize the power requirements while providing a specified minimum processing speed.

[1]  Susanne Albers,et al.  Speed Scaling on Parallel Processors , 2007, SPAA '07.

[2]  Dejan Kostic,et al.  Energy-aware traffic engineering , 2010, e-Energy.

[3]  Lachlan L. H. Andrew,et al.  Optimal sleep patterns for serving delay-tolerant jobs , 2010, e-Energy.

[4]  Adam Wierman,et al.  Tail-robust scheduling via limited processor sharing , 2010, Perform. Evaluation.

[5]  L H AndrewLachlan,et al.  Dynamic right-sizing for power-proportional data centers , 2013 .

[6]  Thomas F. Wenisch,et al.  PowerNap: eliminating server idle power , 2009, ASPLOS.

[7]  Kirk Pruhs,et al.  Getting the best response for your erg , 2004, TALG.

[8]  Lachlan L. H. Andrew,et al.  Dynamic right-sizing for power-proportional data centers , 2011, 2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM.

[9]  A. Wierman,et al.  Optimality, fairness, and robustness in speed scaling designs , 2010, SIGMETRICS '10.

[10]  Raffaele Bolla,et al.  Green Support for PC-Based Software Router: Performance Evaluation and Modeling , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications.

[11]  Ulrich D. Holzbaur,et al.  Decision Processes with Monotone Hysteretic Policies , 1988, Oper. Res..

[12]  Lachlan L. H. Andrew,et al.  Power-Aware Speed Scaling in Processor Sharing Systems , 2009, IEEE INFOCOM 2009.

[13]  Michael Kistler,et al.  The case for power management in web servers , 2002 .

[14]  Mor Harchol-Balter,et al.  Optimality analysis of energy-performance trade-off for server farm management , 2010, Perform. Evaluation.

[15]  Dimitri P. Bertsekas,et al.  Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, Two Volume Set , 1995 .

[16]  J.D. Deng,et al.  Queueing analysis for multi-core performance improvement: Two case studies , 2007, 2007 Australasian Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference.

[17]  Alan Scheller-Wolf,et al.  Structural interpretation and derivation of necessary and sufficient conditions for delay moments in FIFO multiserver queues , 2006, Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..

[18]  Leslie E. Trotter,et al.  When the Greedy Solution Solves a Class of Knapsack Problems , 1975, Oper. Res..

[19]  Marco Mellia,et al.  Reducing Power Consumption in Backbone Networks , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications.

[20]  Susan H. Xu,et al.  Greedy algorithm for the general multidimensional knapsack problem , 2007, Ann. Oper. Res..

[21]  Kirk Pruhs,et al.  How to Schedule When You Have to Buy Your Energy , 2010, APPROX-RANDOM.

[22]  Attahiru Sule Alfa,et al.  Optimal policies for M/M/m queue with two different kinds of (N, T)-policies , 2000 .