1 Automatic Request Categorization in Internet Services Abhishek B. Sharma (USC) Collaborators: Ranjita Bhagwan (MSR, India) Monojit Choudhury (MSR, India)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Introduction Describe what panel data is and the reasons for using it in this format Assess the importance of fixed and random effects Examine the Hausman.
Advertisements

Independent Component Analysis: The Fast ICA algorithm
Overcoming Limitations of Sampling for Agrregation Queries Surajit ChaudhuriMicrosoft Research Gautam DasMicrosoft Research Mayur DatarStanford University.
Dimension reduction (2) Projection pursuit ICA NCA Partial Least Squares Blais. “The role of the environment in synaptic plasticity…..” (1998) Liao et.
Cloud Computing Resource provisioning Keke Chen. Outline  For Web applications statistical Learning and automatic control for datacenters  For data.
Ira Cohen, Jeffrey S. Chase et al.
Ó 1998 Menascé & Almeida. All Rights Reserved.1 Part IV Capacity Planning Methodology.
Providing Performance Guarantees for Cloud Applications Anshul Gandhi IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Stony Brook University 1 Parijat Dube, Alexei Karve,
1 Part IV Capacity Planning Methodology © 1998 Menascé & Almeida. All Rights Reserved.
Model Fitting Jean-Yves Le Boudec 0. Contents 1 Virus Infection Data We would like to capture the growth of infected hosts (explanatory model) An exponential.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA)
Application of Statistical Techniques to Neural Data Analysis Aniket Kaloti 03/07/2006.
3/24/2006Lecture notes for Speech Communications Multi-channel speech enhancement Chunjian Li DICOM, Aalborg University.
Independent Component Analysis (ICA) and Factor Analysis (FA)
Fair Scheduling in Web Servers CS 213 Lecture 17 L.N. Bhuyan.
A Quick Practical Guide to PCA and ICA Ted Brookings, UCSB Physics 11/13/06.
Bayesian belief networks 2. PCA and ICA
Laurent Itti: CS599 – Computational Architectures in Biological Vision, USC Lecture 7: Coding and Representation 1 Computational Architectures in.
© 2008 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice Automated Workload Management in.
1 Part VI System-level Performance Models for the Web © 1998 Menascé & Almeida. All Rights Reserved.
Chapter 9 Overview  Reasons to monitor SQL Server  Performance Monitoring and Tuning  Tools for Monitoring SQL Server  Common Monitoring and Tuning.
HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY OF COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE NEURAL NETWORKS RESEACH CENTRE Variability of Independent Components.
Towards Autonomic Hosting of Multi-tier Internet Services Swaminathan Sivasubramanian, Guillaume Pierre and Maarten van Steen Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,
Survey on ICA Technical Report, Aapo Hyvärinen, 1999.
Power Containers: An OS Facility for Fine-Grained Power and Energy Management on Multicore Servers Kai Shen, Arrvindh Shriraman, Sandhya Dwarkadas, Xiao.
Tomo-gravity Yin ZhangMatthew Roughan Nick DuffieldAlbert Greenberg “A Northern NJ Research Lab” ACM.
GEO7600 Inverse Theory 09 Sep 2008 Inverse Theory: Goals are to (1) Solve for parameters from observational data; (2) Know something about the range of.
1 Reading Report 9 Yin Chen 29 Mar 2004 Reference: Multivariate Resource Performance Forecasting in the Network Weather Service, Martin Swany and Rich.
Monitoring Latency Sensitive Enterprise Applications on the Cloud Shankar Narayanan Ashiwan Sivakumar.
Profile Driven Component Placement for Cluster-based Online Services Christopher Stewart (University of Rochester) Kai Shen (University of Rochester) Sandhya.
Heart Sound Background Noise Removal Haim Appleboim Biomedical Seminar February 2007.
1 On the Placement of Web Server Replicas Lili Qiu, Microsoft Research Venkata N. Padmanabhan, Microsoft Research Geoffrey M. Voelker, UCSD IEEE INFOCOM’2001,
Independent Component Analysis Zhen Wei, Li Jin, Yuxue Jin Department of Statistics Stanford University An Introduction.
Blind Separation of Speech Mixtures Vaninirappuputhenpurayil Gopalan REJU School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering Nanyang Technological University.
Neuroinformatics Aapo Hyvärinen Professor, Group Leader.
A Regression-Based Analytic Model for Dynamic Resource Provisioning of Multi-Tier Applications Qi Zhang College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA 23187,
1 On the Placement of Web Server Replicas Lili Qiu, Microsoft Research Venkata N. Padmanabhan, Microsoft Research Geoffrey M. Voelker, UCSD IEEE INFOCOM’2001,
ECE 8443 – Pattern Recognition LECTURE 10: HETEROSCEDASTIC LINEAR DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS AND INDEPENDENT COMPONENT ANALYSIS Objectives: Generalization of.
Power Containers: An OS Facility for Fine-Grained Power and Energy Management on Multicore Servers Kai Shen, Arrvindh Shriraman, Sandhya Dwarkadas, Xiao.
Developer TECH REFRESH 15 Junho 2015 #pttechrefres h Understand your end-users and your app with Application Insights.
A note about gradient descent: Consider the function f(x)=(x-x 0 ) 2 Its derivative is: By gradient descent (If f(x) is more complex we usually cannot.
An Introduction to Blind Source Separation Kenny Hild Sept. 19, 2001.
© 2006 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice Injecting Realistic Burstiness to.
Multivariate Data Analysis Chapter 1 - Introduction.
CSC2515: Lecture 7 (post) Independent Components Analysis, and Autoencoders Geoffrey Hinton.
Robust Estimation With Sampling and Approximate Pre-Aggregation Author: Christopher Jermaine Presented by: Bill Eberle.
Girish M. Jashnani Sales Consultant Manage your E-Business Suite more effectively.
PCA vs ICA vs LDA. How to represent images? Why representation methods are needed?? –Curse of dimensionality – width x height x channels –Noise reduction.
Ó 1998 Menascé & Almeida. All Rights Reserved.1 Part VI System-level Performance Models for the Web (Book, Chapter 8)
Multi-target Detection in Sensor Networks Xiaoling Wang ECE691, Fall 2003.
ECE 8443 – Pattern Recognition ECE 8527 – Introduction to Machine Learning and Pattern Recognition LECTURE 12: Advanced Discriminant Analysis Objectives:
1 Exploiting Nonstationarity for Performance Prediction Christopher Stewart (University of Rochester) Terence Kelly and Alex Zhang (HP Labs)
© 2002 IBM Corporation IBM Research 1 Policy Transformation Techniques in Policy- based System Management Mandis Beigi, Seraphin Calo and Dinesh Verma.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Performance Testing Test Complete. Performance testing and its sub categories Performance testing is performed, to determine how fast some aspect of a.
Data Mining and Decision Support
Independent Component Analysis Independent Component Analysis.
Feature Selection and Extraction Michael J. Watts
Introduction to Independent Component Analysis Math 285 project Fall 2015 Jingmei Lu Xixi Lu 12/10/2015.
An Introduction of Independent Component Analysis (ICA) Xiaoling Wang Jan. 28, 2003.
Pinpoint: Problem Determination in Large, Dynamic Internet Services Mike Chen, Emre Kıcıman, Eugene Fratkin {emrek,
SQL Server 2012 Session: 1 Session: 4 SQL Azure Data Management Using Microsoft SQL Server.
Dimension reduction (1) Overview PCA Factor Analysis Projection persuit ICA.
Lecturer: Ing. Martina Hanová, PhD. Business Modeling.
CSC2535: Computation in Neural Networks Lecture 7: Independent Components Analysis Geoffrey Hinton.
Ó 1998 Menascé & Almeida. All Rights Reserved.1 Part VI System-level Performance Models for the Web.
Lectures 15: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and
LECTURE 11: Advanced Discriminant Analysis
Brain Electrophysiological Signal Processing: Preprocessing
Estimating Networks With Jumps
Presentation transcript:

1 Automatic Request Categorization in Internet Services Abhishek B. Sharma (USC) Collaborators: Ranjita Bhagwan (MSR, India) Monojit Choudhury (MSR, India) Leana Golubchik (USC) Ramesh Govindan (USC) Geoffrey M. Voelker (UCSD)

2 Web Workload Characterization Static Dynamic Web + Application ServerDatabase Request categories based on resource usage characteristics. Better performance modeling accuracy (Stewart et al. 2007).

3 Workload with multiple categories: What do we need to know? 1.Request Categories 2. Arrival rates/processes 3. Per-category resource usage at each service tier

4 Workload Characterization: Instrumentation-based techniques Request Categories Arrival rates/processes Per-category resource usage at each service tier PinPoint Magpie Requires middleware / OS level instrumentation Sophisticated monitoring and logging infrastructure

5 Workload Characterization: Inference-based techniques Easier to obtain “aggregate” measurements : –aggregate resource utilization –information from server logs Assume: request categories correspond to “high level” transactions (login, checkout, write a review) Techniques based on: Least-Squares Regression, Convex Optimization, … Per-category resource consumption at each tier Response times given the system load

6 “Hot” Question ? Is there an inference technique that does not assume knowledge of the request categories? If yes, then –do not need invasive instrumentation –can infer the request categories and the workload mix. –can infer the service times (resource consumptions) for each request category

7 Our Approach Two key elements. A linear model for aggregate resource consumption. Use Blind Source Separation methods to infer the request categories and their resource consumption characteristics.

8 A Linear Model for Resource Usage Linear Model for aggregate resource consumption: System of equations for n resources, m categories and T measurements, AX + C = R n = 2, m = 2, T = 2 Aggregate resource usage# requests of category 1 Resource consumed by one request + = (n x m)(m x T)(n x 1)(n x T) “Noise”

9 System of equations: AX + C = R Known: R from our measurements If we knew X –Solve for A and C using OLS (Zhang et al. ICAC’07), LAR (Stewart et al. EuroSys’07) But A, C and X are the unknowns! If the linear model holds, and n ≥ m, we can estimate A and X, given R –Equivalent to matrix factorization: AX = R –Also known as Blind Source Separation Equivalent to Matrix Factorization!

10 Equivalent to Matrix Factorization! If the linear model holds, and n ≥ m, we can estimate A and X, given R –Equivalent to matrix factorization: AX = R –Also known as Blind Source Separation What about the “noise” terms C ? –Filter it out ! (We take this approach) –Can be accounted for. added complexity

11 Assumptions Arrivals for different categories are mutually uncorrelated. But uncorrelated constraint is not enough! –Infinitely many solutions for A. Independent Component Analysis (ICA): –Statistically independent components –Maximizes kurtosis, negentropy –Works only when “source signals” are non-Gaussian Other techniques: –Principal Component Analysis (PCA) –Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA)

12 Methodology We use ICA. –FastICA package (Thank you, Hyvarinen !) PCA used to pre-process R. Evaluation: E-commerce workload –An online store: “Browsing” and “Shopping” sessions –Tools: Microsoft PetShop 4.0 –Visual Studio Test Suite (for Client Emulation) Testbed: –Microsoft IIS 6.0 (web server) –Microsoft SQL Server 2005 (database)

13 Results: Request Categories & their resource usage We compare ICA estimates against OLS regression estimates because we do not have the ground truth ! I II Do these categories correspond to something?

14 Results: Request Arrivals Avg. Percentage Error: Browsing 11%, Shopping 17%

15 Is the Linear Model valid? At best, approximate fit Conjecture: Not valid when –Heavily load Does not capture? –Interaction effects across requests. –Autocorrelation in resource consumption. –More severe in heavily loaded system Stewart et al. (Eurosys’07), Mi et al. (Performance’07)

16 What about the ICA assumptions? 1.ICA assumes non-Gaussianity and Independence. 2.All BSS methods assumes mutually uncorrelated “sources” non-Gaussianity: –Per-second aggregate arrivals are non-Gaussian –Sampling interval should not be too large (~ 10 min) Independence/mutually uncorrelated: –May not always hold. –In practice, FastICA finds as independent components as possible.

17 Future Work 1.Determining m, the number of categories ? 2.Effect of noise –FastICA is known to be robust against noise. –“Noisy” ICA 3.Which request belongs to which category? –Goldszmidt et al. (EC’01) 4.How do results from CCA compare against ICA? –“Autocorrelated” constraint might be less restrictive than “independence” constraint in the real world. 5.Evaluation using benchmarks—TPC-W, RuBiS, real system traces. 6.Use queueing network models to tie our workload characterization work with end user quality of service.

18 Thank you