My Point of View about Bandwidth Sharing Bin Wang

Outline Oktopus (Sigcomm 2011) TIVC (Sigcomm 2012) Seawall (NSDI 2011) Faircloud (Sigcomm 2012) Hadrian (NSDI 2013)

Min-Guarantee Each VM should be guaranteed a minimum bandwidth. (Oktopus et al.) Calculate VM Bandwidth VM Placement Bulid Virtual Data Center

Oktopus [Hitesh Ballani et al. Sigcomm 2011] Virtual Cluster Virtual Oversubscribed Cluster

TIVC [Di Xie et al. Sigcomm 2012] Temporally-interleaved Virtual Cluster Example: Single Peak, where P=(T1, T2, B)

Network Proportionality The bandwidth allocated to a tenant should be proportional to its payment. (Seawall et al.) Per-flow allocation [B. Briscoe Sigcomm 2007] unfairness for jot flows Per-source allocation [Seawall Alan Shieh et al. NSDI 2011] asymmetric for bisection bandwidth allocation (similar to per-destination allocation)

High Utilization Spare network resources should be allocated to tenants with demand. (FairCloud et al.) Per-VM allocation [Gatekeeper H. Rodrigues et al. WIOV 2011] violate min-guarantee & proportionality Per-SD allocation [FairCloud Lucian Popa et al. Sigcomm 2012] [Hadrian Hitesh Ballani et al. NSDI 2013]

Good Allocation Strategies (1) Work conservation: As long as there is at least a tenant that has packets to send along link L, L cannot be idle. (FairCloud)

Good Allocation Strategies (2) Strategy-proofness: Tenants cannot improve their allocations by lying about their demands. (FairCloud)

Good Allocation Strategies (3) Utilization incentives: Tenants are never incentivized to reduce their actual demands on uncongested paths or to artificially leave links underutilized. (FairCloud)

Good Allocation Strategies (4) Communication dependencies: A tenant ’ s communication dependency is a list of other tenants or peers that the tenant expects to communicate with. (Hadrian) If, i) P: {Q}, ii) Q: {P, R}, iii) R: {*}, R cannot communicate with P.

Good Allocation Strategies (5) Min-guarantee: Total flows do get their minimum bandwidths. (Hadrian)

Good Allocation Strategies (6) Symmetry: The reverse allocation of each flow should match its original (forward) allocation. (FairCloud)

None of the state of art includes all the above issues. None of them is strategy-proofness because all of them are static allocations. Hadrian

FairCloud PS-L: PS-P:

Strategy-proofness is requisite because it prevents malicious allocation actions.

My points of view Link incentives: Useful link will be work conservation as soon as possiable. Preferential policy: The last allocation statement, if triggered by newly allocations, should not be largely changed in a period. First-fit: The initial source&destination VMs through the link will acquire preferential policy. Other factors: Our proposal should not violate min-guarantee et al.

First Fit--Per-SD allocation Assume each VM has the same min-guarantee as 1. is a set of all VMs belonging to the proximate link l on first-fit period For example,

First Fit--Per-SD allocation When adding the transfer p'-r5, because it is also the first-fit, it's allocation weight:

The allocation strategy for newly D/S from the latest S/D. is the number of the newly D/S from X at statement i. is the number of the decreased old S/D from X at statement i.

Instance

Instance (2)

Instance (3)

Disscussion The proposal is strategy-proofness.  Deeply increasing allocation does not affect the last allocation most.  Deeply decreasing allocation will affect the benefit of the actor.  The strategy encourages the balance of the increasing&decreasing.

First-fit at Tenant Level

First-fit at Tenant Level Case 1

First-fit+Payment-guarantee The proportionality should represent VMs payment-guarantee. That means VMs with smaller minimal bandwidth should not acquire the profit from VMs with larger one. (Hadrian)

Proposal Comparison Work conservation Strategy- proofness Comm. depe. Utilization incentives Min- guarantee Symmetry Oktopus ×××××× Per-source √ ××××× Per-flow ×××××× PS-L √ ×× √ × √ PS-P √ ×× √√√ Hadrian √ × √√√√ First-fit √√ × √x√ First- fit+payment √√√√√√

Future Work Consider the deployment in the tree-based topology/BCube Simulate on Estinet (compared with FairCloud, per- source, per-flow, Hadrian) Testbed (3 hops communication & Fat-tree)

Thanks