Cluster Resource Management: A Scalable Approach

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Network Resource Broker for IPTV in Cloud Computing Lei Liang, Dan He University of Surrey, UK OGF 27, G2C Workshop 15 Oct 2009 Banff,
Advertisements

Current methods for negotiating firewalls for the Condor ® system Bruce Beckles (University of Cambridge Computing Service) Se-Chang Son (University of.
Background Virtual memory – separation of user logical memory from physical memory. Only part of the program needs to be in memory for execution. Logical.
Adaptive QoS Control Based on Benefit Optimization for Video Servers Providing Differential Services Ing-Ray Chen, Sheng-Yun Li, I-Ling Yen Presented by.
Efficient Event-based Resource Discovery Wei Yan*, Songlin Hu*, Vinod Muthusamy +, Hans-Arno Jacobsen +, Li Zha* * Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
Hadi Goudarzi and Massoud Pedram
SDN + Storage.
1 Storage-Aware Caching: Revisiting Caching for Heterogeneous Systems Brian Forney Andrea Arpaci-Dusseau Remzi Arpaci-Dusseau Wisconsin Network Disks University.
1 Storage-Aware Caching: Revisiting Caching for Heterogeneous Storage Systems (Fast’02) Brian Forney Andrea Arpaci-Dusseau Remzi Arpaci-Dusseau Wisconsin.
Layered Peer-to-Peer Streaming Yi Cui, Klara Nahrstedt Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Source International Workshop.
Ning Li Jordan Parker Scalable Cluster Resource Management 1 Cluster Resource Management: Scalable Approaches Ning Li Jordan Parker Mid-semester Status.
Enabling High-level SLOs on Shared Storage Andrew Wang, Shivaram Venkataraman, Sara Alspaugh, Randy Katz, Ion Stoica Cake 1.
Scalable Content-aware Request Distribution in Cluster-based Network Servers Jianbin Wei 10/4/2001.
1 Routing and Scheduling in Web Server Clusters. 2 Reference The State of the Art in Locally Distributed Web-server Systems Valeria Cardellini, Emiliano.
Technical Architectures
Web Caching Schemes1 A Survey of Web Caching Schemes for the Internet Jia Wang.
ZIGZAG A Peer-to-Peer Architecture for Media Streaming By Duc A. Tran, Kien A. Hua and Tai T. Do Appear on “Journal On Selected Areas in Communications,
Effectively Utilizing Global Cluster Memory for Large Data-Intensive Parallel Programs John Oleszkiewicz, Li Xiao, Yunhao Liu IEEE TRASACTION ON PARALLEL.
Improving Proxy Cache Performance: Analysis of Three Replacement Policies Dilley, J.; Arlitt, M. A journal paper of IEEE Internet Computing, Volume: 3.
Decentralized resource management for a distributed continuous media server Cyrus Shahabi and Farnoush Banaei-Kashani IEEE Transactions on Parallel and.
End-to-End Analysis of Distributed Video-on-Demand Systems P. Mundur, R. Simon, and A. K. Sood IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, Vol. 6, No. 1, Feb 2004.
CS218 – Final Project A “Small-Scale” Application- Level Multicast Tree Protocol Jason Lee, Lih Chen & Prabash Nanayakkara Tutor: Li Lao.
Decentralized Resource Management for a Distributed Continuous Media Server Cyrus Shahabi and Farnoush Banaei-Kashani Presented by Leung Chi Kit.
A Tool for Describing and Evaluating Hierarchical Real-Time Bus Scheduling Policies Author: Trevor Meyerowitz, Claudio Pinello, Alberto DAC2003, June 24,2003.
On Self Adaptive Routing in Dynamic Environments -- A probabilistic routing scheme Haiyong Xie, Lili Qiu, Yang Richard Yang and Yin Yale, MR and.
PROOF: the Parallel ROOT Facility Scheduling and Load-balancing ACAT 2007 Jan Iwaszkiewicz ¹ ² Gerardo Ganis ¹ Fons Rademakers ¹ ¹ CERN PH/SFT ² University.
1 The Google File System Reporter: You-Wei Zhang.
Dynamic and Decentralized Approaches for Optimal Allocation of Multiple Resources in Virtualized Data Centers Wei Chen, Samuel Hargrove, Heh Miao, Liang.
Dynamic Resource Allocation Using Virtual Machines for Cloud Computing Environment.
On the Scale and Performance of Cooperative Web Proxy Caching University of Washington Alec Wolman, Geoff Voelker, Nitin Sharma, Neal Cardwell, Anna Karlin,
Overcast: Reliable Multicasting with an Overlay Network CS294 Paul Burstein 9/15/2003.
Architectural Support for Fine-Grained Parallelism on Multi-core Architectures Sanjeev Kumar, Corporate Technology Group, Intel Corporation Christopher.
TOMA: A Viable Solution for Large- Scale Multicast Service Support Li Lao, Jun-Hong Cui, and Mario Gerla UCLA and University of Connecticut Networking.
A Measurement Based Memory Performance Evaluation of High Throughput Servers Garba Isa Yau Department of Computer Engineering King Fahd University of Petroleum.
Main Memory CS448.
The Owner Share scheduler for a distributed system 2009 International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops Reporter: 李長霖.
N. GSU Slide 1 Chapter 05 Clustered Systems for Massive Parallelism N. Xiong Georgia State University.
Adaptive Web Caching CS411 Dynamic Web-Based Systems Flying Pig Fei Teng/Long Zhao/Pallavi Shinde Computer Science Department.
HADOOP DISTRIBUTED FILE SYSTEM HDFS Reliability Based on “The Hadoop Distributed File System” K. Shvachko et al., MSST 2010 Michael Tsitrin 26/05/13.
DynamicMR: A Dynamic Slot Allocation Optimization Framework for MapReduce Clusters Nanyang Technological University Shanjiang Tang, Bu-Sung Lee, Bingsheng.
Static Process Scheduling
CS 6401 Overlay Networks Outline Overlay networks overview Routing overlays Resilient Overlay Networks Content Distribution Networks.
MiddleMan: A Video Caching Proxy Server NOSSDAV 2000 Brian Smith Department of Computer Science Cornell University Ithaca, NY Soam Acharya Inktomi Corporation.
On the Placement of Web Server Replicas Yu Cai. Paper On the Placement of Web Server Replicas Lili Qiu, Venkata N. Padmanabhan, Geoffrey M. Voelker Infocom.
Load Rebalancing for Distributed File Systems in Clouds.
Stride Scheduling: Deterministic Proportional-Share Resource Management Carl A. Waldspurger, William E. Weihl MIT Laboratory for Computer Science Presenter:
HOW TO BUILD A BETTER TESTBED Fabien Hermenier Robert Ricci LESSONS FROM A DECADE OF NETWORK EXPERIMENTS ON EMULAB TridentCom ’
Spark on Entropy : A Reliable & Efficient Scheduler for Low-latency Parallel Jobs in Heterogeneous Cloud Huankai Chen PhD Student at University of Kent.
TensorFlow– A system for large-scale machine learning
Web Server Load Balancing/Scheduling
Web Server Load Balancing/Scheduling
op5 Monitor - Scalable Monitoring
PA an Coordinated Memory Caching for Parallel Jobs
Memory Management for Scalable Web Data Servers
Auburn University COMP7500 Advanced Operating Systems I/O-Aware Load Balancing Techniques (2) Dr. Xiao Qin Auburn University.
Comparison of the Three CPU Schedulers in Xen
On the Scale and Performance of Cooperative Web Proxy Caching
Lottery Scheduling Ish Baid.
SCOPE: Scalable Consistency in Structured P2P Systems
EECS 582 Final Review Mosharaf Chowdhury EECS 582 – F16.
Omega: flexible, scalable schedulers for large compute clusters
Anupam Das , Nikita Borisov
Peer-to-Peer Video Services
Totally Disjoint Multipath Routing in Multihop Wireless Networks Sonia Waharte and Raoef Boutaba Presented by: Anthony Calce.
INTRODUCTION Objectives
The Design of a Grid Computing System for Drug Discovery and Design
Virtual Memory: Working Sets
Database System Architectures
Algorithms for Selecting Mirror Sites for Parallel Download
Performance-Robust Parallel I/O
Presentation transcript:

Cluster Resource Management: A Scalable Approach Ning Li and Jordan Parker CS 736 Class Project

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Outline Introduction A Scalable Approach: Hierarchy Results Conclusions Questions 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Why Study Resource Management? Clusters have become increasingly popular for large parallel computing. Web Servers Clusters are becoming increasingly large to the order of thousands of nodes. Clusters are providing multiple services. Hard to evaluate Bad is easy to determine Good is much harder Possible scenario. ISP is doing web hosting. They have 5 clients. 4 of them pay the same amount, the fifth pays five times as much. Therefore that client should get half of the clusters resources. But clients are really only paying for guarantees, it can get very complicated from here. 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Resource Management Example 4th Node Services only B Poor Management Ideal A 50% B 50% Node 1 A 50% B 50% Node 2 A 50% B 50% Node 3 B 100% Node 4 Overall A 37.5% B 62.5% A 66% B 33% Node 1 A 66% B 33% Node 2 A 66% B 33% Node 3 B 100% Node 4 A 50% B 50% Overall 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Clustering Goals Scalability Reliability High Performance Affordability Cluster Resource Management should have these same goals 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Related Work Proportional-Share Cluster Reserves Proportional Share Andrea Arpaci-Dusseau – Cluster Reserves 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Related Work: Approach Differences Our Goal: to provide a scalable solution for resource management. Other work focused primarily on just having good management This often meant 1 manager for all the nodes Clearly this could present a scalable bottleneck Effectiveness: Other solutions probably better for smaller clusters, we hope to be better for large (>1000 nodes) clusters. 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Outline Introduction A Scalable Approach: Hierarchy Results Conclusions Questions 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Hierarchy: A Scalable Approach Hierarchical Management Nodes service jobs Managers facilitate resource management 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4 1 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Banking Algorithm Goal Determine best allocation given previous usage Primitives Tickets Bank accounts Deposit / withdraw tickets 6 Steps 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Banking Algorithm Step 1: For each service class on each node Deposit unused tickets Step 2: For each service class on each node Reallocate service class Full utilization: Allocation = usage + k Under utilization: Allocation = usage - k 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Banking Algorithm Cont. Step 3: For each service class Compare total allocation to desired Subtract from over-allocated Add to needy & under-allocated Step 4: For each service class Deposit / Withdraw If still over-allocated withdraw If still under-allocated deposit 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Banking Algorithm Cont. Step 5: Withdraw and allocate Reward the needy nodes Step 6: Done, clear the bank accounts 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Reliability Bottom-up Manager Replacement 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4 1 Not relevant to the performance of our scheduler, we didn’t even simulate it but … It does show that the network layout we’ve designed could easily handle failures Making the tree balance itself and handling failures could be relatively straight forward 5 5 6 7 2 2 1 3 8 9 10 4 11 12 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Outline Introduction A Scalable Approach: Hierarchy Results Conclusions Questions 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Results Cluster Nodes Managers 1st/2nd Level Reporting 1st/2nd Level Workloads Class 2 Constraints Tests 4 2/1 1/1 Steady Dyn 1 1/5 100 10/1 1-30 2 3 900 30/1 1-300 5 Not going show case of having one manager (here). The data is a nice comparison – but take our word for it we got essentially the same results. Max of 900 nodes because NS started page faulting with more nodes. We now have access to a larger server – ironsides (7Gb RAM), we’ll see what happens Choose 3 service classes because it makes it easy to evaluate and easy to 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Implementation Details Simulations via The NS – Network Simulator Low bandwidth 10Mbs communication network UDP for lower server overhead Assumptions Node level resource management works ideally UDP might not be appropriate when introducing fault tolerance, we just wanted to show that it could work on a low bandwidth network since it introduces lower overheads. 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 1: Overview 4 nodes – 3 services – 60/30/10 Allocation 4th node receives all of 3rd class’s requests Steady Workload 2nd 33% 1st 66% Node 1 2nd 33% 1st 66% Node 2 2nd 33% 1st 66% Node 3 2nd 20% 1st 40% 3rd 40% Node 4 2nd 30% 1st 60% 3rd 10% Overall 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 1: Data 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 2: Overview 100 nodes – 3 services – 60/30/10 Allocation nodes 1-30 receive all of 3rd class’s requests Steady Workload 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 2: Data 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 3: Overview 100 nodes – 3 services – 60/30/10 Allocation nodes 1-30 receive all of 3rd class’s requests Dynamic Workload 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 3: Data 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 4: Overview 100 nodes – 3 services – 60/30/10 Allocation nodes 1-30 receive all of 3rd class’s requests Steady Workload Reporting 1/5 Nodes every 0.3 second Managers every 1.5 seconds 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 4: Data 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 5: Overview 900 nodes – 3 services – 60/30/10 Allocation nodes 1-300 receive all of 3rd class’s requests Steady Workload 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Test 5: Data 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Outline Introduction A Scalable Approach: Hierarchy Results Conclusions Questions 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Conclusions Benefits of an hierarchy Scalable Reliable Geographic Applications Implemented a new management scheme: Banking Comparable Results Improved Scalability 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Conclusions Clusters are sensitive to small policy changes Clusters are built for specific workloads Their performance is important and small changes have significant impact No scheme is universally applicable Future Work Real system implementation Real Workloads Real node level resource management More steady performance 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Outline Introduction A Scalable Approach: Hierarchy Results Conclusions Questions 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Ning Li and Jordan Parker Questions 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Related Work: Proportional-Share Stride Scheduling Ticket based and similar to lottery Scale Randomly query k nodes to find best allocation Different Application Condor-like resource allocation/applications Extending Proportional-Share Scheduling to a Network of Workstations Andrea C. Arpaci-Dusseau and David Culler 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Related Work: Cluster Reserves Resource Container Schedulers Constrained Optimization Algorithm Scale Centralized single manager 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Hierarchical Cluster Reserves – Version 1 Modify Cluster Reserves optimization algorithm Use it when manager manages nodes AND when level_n+1 manager manages level_n managers. 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker

Hierarchical Cluster Reserves – Version 2 Cluster Reserves optimization algorithm Use it when manager manages nodes Don’t use it for upper level managers Modify the manager to manager reporting Lie to the algorithm 11/21/2018 Ning Li and Jordan Parker