Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of Computing Clouds
Nezih Yigitbasi, Alexandru Iosup, and Dick Epema
{M.N.Yigitbasi, D.H.J.Epema, A.Iosup}@tudelft.nl
Delft University of Technology
Simon Ostermann
simon@dps.uibk.ac.at
University of Innsbruck
I. I NTRODUCTION
Cloud computing has emerged as a new technology that
lets the users host and deploy their applications in a secure
environment with a promise of increased scalability, availability, and fault tolerance. As the use of cloud computing
environments increases [1], it becomes crucial to understand
the performance of these environments in order to facilitate
the decision to adopt this new technology, and understand and
resolve the performance problems. In this paper, we present
C-Meter, which is a framework for generating and submitting
test workloads to computing clouds. By using C-Meter, users
can assess the overhead of acquiring and releasing the virtual
computing resources, they can compare different configurations, they can evaluate different scheduling algorithms and
they can also determine the costs of their experiments.
Many big vendors like Amazon, Google, Dell, IBM, and
Microsoft are interested in this technology and they invest
billions in order to provide their own cloud solutions [1]. The
cloud providers are responsible for maintaining the underlying
computing and data infrastructure while at the same time
reducing the administration and maintenance costs for the
TABLE I
A MAZON EC2 I NSTANCE T YPES AND R ELATED C OSTS FOR L INUX /U NIX
I NSTANCES .
Instance Type
m1.small
0.10 $
m1.large
0.40 $
m1.xlarge
0.80 $
c1.medium
0.20 $
c1.xlarge
20
0.80 $
Fig. 1.
500
40
450
350
400
300
250
200
150
100
30
20
10
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
m1.small
|SSH|
|OAT|-|SSH|
m1.large
Number of Instances
|SSH|
|OAT|-|SSH|
m1.xlarge
|SSH|
|OAT|-|SSH|
0
1
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Number of Instances
m1.xlarge
m1.large
m1.small
Resource acquisition time (a) and resource release time (b) with different number of instances of standard instance types.
m1.small
15.32
2.49
m1.large
11.19
2.04
m1.xlarge
11.77
2.06
Metric
5 instances 10 instances 20 instances
Avg. Response Time [s]
396.40
313.92
187.27
Avg. Bounded Slowdown
321.87
257.15
155.62
Avg. Wait Time in Queue [s] 242.39
189.10
114.12
m1.small
313.92
257.15
189.10
m1.large
228.12
203.10
137.69
m1.xlarge
207.40
184.85
126.37
Response Time
100
Slowdown
100
10
550
500
450
300
250
200
150
100
50
550
500
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
550
5 instances
10 instances
20 instances
400
5 instances
10 instances
20 instances
350
10
1
500
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
450
5 instances
10 instances
20 instances
1000
450
10
Bounded Slowdown
1000
400
100
400
1000
(a) The waiting time in queue, the response time, and the bounded slowdown with a threshold of 1 second for m1.small instance types of 5,10 and
20 instances
Queue Wait Time
Response Time
100
Slowdown
100
10
550
500
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
550
1
500
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
550
m1.small
m1.large
m1.xlarge
450
m1.small
m1.large
m1.xlarge
400
10
1
500
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
450
m1.small
m1.large
m1.xlarge
1000
450
10
Bounded Slowdown
1000
400
100
400
1000
(b) The waiting time in queue, the response time, and the bounded slowdown with a threshold of 1 second for 10 instances of type m1.small, m1.large,
and m1.xlarge
Fig. 4. The waiting time in queue, the response time, and the bounded slowdown with a threshold of 1 second for m1.small instance types of 5,10, and 20
instances (a), and 10 instances of type m1.small, m1.large, and m1.xlarge (b). (Arrival times are relative to the first job submission and the vertical axis has
a logarithmic scale.)
5 instances
0.50 $
N/A
N/A
10 instances
1$
4$
8$
20 instances
2$
N/A
N/A
Predictive
427.19
283.98
150.02
13.30
Round Robin
396.40
321.87
145.29
2.77
TABLE VII
D ISTRIBUTION OF J OBS TO I NSTANCES WITH D IFFERENT S CHEDULING
A LGORITHMS .
Instance
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
Predictive Scheduling
404
247
89
146
114
Response Time
10
Slowdown
100
10
Predictive Scheduling
Round Robin Scheduling
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
550
0.1
500
450
400
350
300
200
250
Predictive Scheduling
Round Robin Scheduling
150
550
Execution Time
10
100
550
Bounded Slowdown
50
500
1000
500
450
200
150
100
50
550
400
Predictive Scheduling
Round Robin Scheduling
1
500
450
400
350
200
150
100
50
300
Predictive Scheduling
Round Robin Scheduling
350
10
100
300
100
250
1000
250
1000
Fig. 5. Waiting time in the queue (a), the response time (b), the bounded slowdown with a threshold of 1 second (c) and the execution time (d) for 5 instances
of type m1.small with two different scheduling algorithms.(Arrival times are relative to the first job submission and the vertical axis has a logarithmic scale.)
V. R ELATED W ORK
Garfinkel [8], [9] has explained his experiences with Amazon EC2, S3 and SQS (Simple Queue Service) infrastructures.
He has also made an analysis of the ease of use of the
APIs, EC2 security and management facilities, availability and
also the end-to-end performance analysis of S3 throughput
and latency by making use of probes from EC2. Walker
[10] focused on analyzing the performance of EC2 for highperformance scientific applications by using micro and macro
benchmarks. In his analysis he uses High-CPU instance types
and compares EC2 performance with a cluster consisting
of equivalent processors; he has also uses the NAS Parallel
Benchmarks and the mpptest micro benchmark for demonstrating the performance of message passing applications.
Wolski et al. [11] introduce their open source cloud computing
software framework Eucalyptus and present the results of
their experiments, which compare the instance throughput and
network performance against Amazon EC2. They conclude
that the performance of Eucalyptus is quite good and that it
outperforms EC2 in an environment with significantly fewer