On Selecting the Right Optimizations for Virtual Machine Migration

To reduce the migration time of a virtual machine and network traffic generated during migration, existing works have proposed a number of optimizations to pre-copy live migration. These optimizations are delta compression, page skip, deduplication, and data compression. The cost-benefit analysis of these optimizations may preclude the use of certain optimizations in specific scenarios. However, no study has compared the performance & cost of these optimizations, and identified the impact of application behaviour on performance gain. Hence, it is not clear for a given migration scenario and an application, what is the best optimization that one must employ? In this paper, we present a comprehensive empirical study using a large number of workloads to provide recommendations on selection of optimizations for pre-copy live migration. The empirical study reveals that page skip is an important optimization as it reduces network traffic by 20% with negligible additional CPU cost. Data compression yields impressive gains in reducing network traffic (37%) but at the cost of a significant increase in CPU consumption (5×). De-duplication needs to be applied with utmost care as the increase in CPU utilization might outweigh the benefits considerably. The combination of page skip and data compression works the best across workloads and results in a significant reduction in network traffic (40%).

[1]  Kang G. Shin,et al.  Application-assisted live migration of virtual machines with Java applications , 2015, EuroSys.

[2]  Prashant J. Shenoy,et al.  CloudNet: dynamic pooling of cloud resources by live WAN migration of virtual machines , 2011, VEE.

[3]  Umesh Bellur,et al.  Resource availability based performance benchmarking of virtual machine migrations , 2013, ICPE '13.

[4]  Bernhard Egger,et al.  Efficient live migration of virtual machines using shared storage , 2013, VEE '13.

[5]  Umesh Bellur,et al.  Towards a comprehensive performance model of virtual machine live migration , 2015, SoCC.

[6]  Kai Li,et al.  The PARSEC benchmark suite: Characterization and architectural implications , 2008, 2008 International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT).

[7]  Amer Diwan,et al.  The DaCapo benchmarks: java benchmarking development and analysis , 2006, OOPSLA '06.

[8]  Emily Halili,et al.  Apache JMeter , 2008 .

[9]  Petter Svärd,et al.  Evaluation of delta compression techniques for efficient live migration of large virtual machines , 2011, VEE '11.

[10]  Tzi-cker Chiueh,et al.  Introspection-based memory de-duplication and migration , 2013, VEE '13.

[11]  Hong Jiang,et al.  Read-Performance Optimization for Deduplication-Based Storage Systems in the Cloud , 2014, TOS.

[12]  Hai Jin,et al.  Live virtual machine migration with adaptive, memory compression , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing and Workshops.

[13]  Hiroshi Yamada,et al.  Towards unobtrusive VM live migration for cloud computing platforms , 2012, APSys.

[14]  William Pugh,et al.  RUBiS revisited: why J2EE benchmarking is hard , 2004, OOPSLA '04.

[15]  Min Xu,et al.  Efficient Hybrid Inline and Out-of-Line Deduplication for Backup Storage , 2014, TOS.

[16]  Carlo Curino,et al.  OLTP-Bench: An Extensible Testbed for Benchmarking Relational Databases , 2013, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[17]  Andrew Warfield,et al.  Live migration of virtual machines , 2005, NSDI.

[18]  Arun Venkataramani,et al.  Black-box and Gray-box Strategies for Virtual Machine Migration , 2007, NSDI.

[19]  Raju Rangaswami,et al.  I/O Deduplication: Utilizing content similarity to improve I/O performance , 2010, TOS.

[20]  Yellu Sreenivasulu,et al.  FAST TRANSPARENT MIGRATION FOR VIRTUAL MACHINES , 2014 .

[21]  Berkin Özisikyilmaz,et al.  MineBench: A Benchmark Suite for Data Mining Workloads , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization.