Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byReese Tyner Modified over 3 years ago

1
Achieving Elasticity for Cloud MapReduce Jobs Khaled Salah khaled.salah@kustar.ac.ae IEEE CloudNet 2013 – San Francisco November 13, 2013

2
p2 Outline r Background and motivation r Uses cases of our analytical model r Analytical model r Derived performance metrics r Numerical results r Conclusions and future work

3
p3 Background and Motivation r MapReduce is a popular paradigm that can parallelize large data processing on cloud clusters. r MR paradigm is a key enabler for Big Data analytics r MR Jobs – e.g. web search engine requests r In cloud computing, a critical research problem is how to achieve elasticity for MR jobs as the workload conditions change over time.

4
p4 Elasticity r Elasticity is how fast the cloud responds (or autoscales) to a given workload to reach perfect capacity. Overprovisioning D(t) < R(t) Underprovisioning D(t) > R(t) Perfect Provisioning D(t) = R(t)

5
p5 MapReduce Jobs

6
p6 Usefulness of our model (1/2) r In elasticity and autoscaling: given workload conditions, we can estimate the required number of VMs to meet the SLO delay requirements And not by trial and error CPU utilization can be misleading r Determine the required slave nodes required to execute MR jobs

7
p7 Usefulness of our model (2/2) r In call admission To accept or deny cloud requests based on meeting the SLO delay Available compute resources are not enough r Estimating the end-to-end delay for elastic MR jobs

8
p8 Typical Cloud Datacenter Architecture

9
p9 M/G/1/K Queueing Model

10
p10 M/G/1/K

11
p11 Analysis Approach r The challenge in analyzing such a queueing system is to compute or the PDF of the generally distributed random variable X representing the service times r The mean service time E[X] r Then, the second stage random service time B for these N parallel workers can be expressed as r E[B] can be expressed as

12
p12 Analysis Approach r For the Reducer stage, r E[R] can be expressed as r Therefore, the mean service time E[X]

13
p13 Performance r Given: Incoming load JS and service rates for each mapper & reducer Queue size r Formulas for: Response time Throughput Loss probability

14
p14 Numerical Example r We fix the system size K to 100 requests. We fix r depends on two factors: (1) m-- the number of mapper per node, and (2) the execution speed of each node. If we assume a reducer takes 500 ms to be executed on a single node, and with homogenous splitting, then ms.

15
p15 Numerical Example r Similarly, depends on two factors: (1) n-- the number of mapper per node, and (2) the execution speed of each node. If we assume a reducer takes 100 ms to be executed on a single node, and with homogenous splitting, then ms. r For autoscaling, we assume that the mappers and reducers always autoscale with a ratio of 2:1. That is, one reducer is needed for two mappers, or

16
p16 Service Delay vs. Workload

17
p17

18
p18

19
p19

20
p20 Concluding Remarks r We presented analytical model to estimate the minimum number of cloud resources required for executing MapReduce jobs on the cloud r Closed-form solutions were derived for key SLO performance metrics such as response time, blocking probability, and throughput. r Simulation results show that our analytical model is correct. r Future work will be on implementation

21
p21 Thank you! khaled.salah@kustar.ac.ae

22
p22 Q&A khaled.salah@kustar.ac.ae

Similar presentations

OK

1 Token Bucket Based CAC and Packet Scheduling for IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Access Networks Chi-Hung Chiang

1 Token Bucket Based CAC and Packet Scheduling for IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Access Networks Chi-Hung Chiang

© 2019 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google