Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

POF-SVLM: pareto optimized framework for seamless VM live migration

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Live migration helps to achieve resource consolidation and fault tolerance. It transfers VM storage together with VM memory and CPU status. During migration, a dirty page rate also delays the period of live migration, and it affects the performance of migration by increasing migration time, network bandwidth consumption, CPU processing overheads and application downtime. Experimental results after comparing with existing methods of VM live migration, reflects that with high data transfer rate, prolonged migration time and downtime make it infeasible to achieve seamless live migration. This paper provides a detailed analysis of the KVM strategy for live migration. It shows that the KVM iterative copy method, where all RAM data is marked as dirty and transferred during the first iteration, initially generating majority of additional overheads, mainly due to large data transfer. Based on these findings, the innovative Pareto Optimized framework [POF-SVLM] was developed and deployed as a standardized VM storage network, such as the Network Attached Storage (NAS), shared between the source and the target machine. Only the VM primary storage is to be transferred during live migration. Additionally, the architecture effectively monitors all I/O VM requests to determine unique pages in the primary memory that are only transferred during the iterations. All duplicate pages are downloaded directly from the NAS to the target machine. Detailed experimental evaluation shows that the proposed mechanism reduces the VM live migration overheads by 55–60%. Experimental results also shows that the downtime of POF-SVLM based live migration is in the range less than 60 s even for highly intense workloads. This is the most significant contribution of POF-SVLM because since the downtime less than 60 s, the user will not be able to notice it and results in seamless VM live migration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barham P, Dragovic B, Fraser K, Hand S, Harris T, Ho A, Neugebauer R, Pratt I, Warfield A (2003) Xen and the art of virtualization. In: ACM SIGOPS operating systems review, vol 37. ACM, pp 164–177

  2. Zhang R, Su X, Wang J, Wang C, Liu W, Lau RWH (2015) On mitigating the risk of cross-vm covert channels in a public cloud. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(8):2327–2339

    Google Scholar 

  3. Novakovic D, Vasic N, Novakovic S, Kostic D, Bianchini R (2013) Deepdive: transparently identifying and managing performance interference in virtualized environments. In: Proceedings of the 2013 USENIX annual technical conference, number EPFL-CONF-185984

  4. Govindan S, Liu J, Kansal A, Sivasubramaniam A (2011) Cuanta: quantifying effects of shared on-chip resource interference for consolidated virtual machines. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on cloud computing. ACM

  5. Dean J, Ghemawat S (2008) Mapreduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. Commun ACM 51(1):107–113

    Google Scholar 

  6. Farahnakian F, Ashraf A, Pahikkala T, Liljeberg P, Plosila J, Porres I, Tenhunen H (2015) Using ant colony system to consolidate vms for green cloud computing. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 8(2):187–198

    Google Scholar 

  7. Reich J, Laadan O, Brosh E, Sherman A, Misra V, Nieh J, Rubenstein D (2012) Vmtorrent: scalable p2p virtual machine streaming. CoNEXT 12:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cecchet E, Chanda A, Elnikety S, Marguerite J, Zwaenepoel W (2003) Performance comparison of middleware architectures for generating dynamic web content. In: ACM/IFIP/USENIX international conference on distributed systems platforms and open distributed processing, pp 242–261. Springer

  9. Xie R, Wen Y, Jia X, Xie H (2015) Supporting seamless virtual machine migration via named data networking in cloud data center. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(12):3485–3497

    Google Scholar 

  10. Baruchi A, Midorikawa ET, Sato LM (2015) Reducing virtual machine live migration overhead via workload analysis. IEEE Latin America Trans 13(4):1178–1186

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wood T, Ramakrishnan KK, Shenoy P, Van der Merwe J (2011) Cloudnet: dynamic pooling of cloud resources by live wan migration of virtual machines. In: ACM sigplan notices, vol 46, pp 121–132

  12. Bradford R, Kotsovinos E, Feldmann A, Schiöberg H (2007) Live wide-area migration of virtual machines including local persistent state. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on virtual execution environments, pp 169–179. ACM

  13. Beloglazov A, Buyya R, Lee YC, Zomaya A (2011) A taxonomy and survey of energy-efficient data centers and cloud computing systems. In: Advances in computers, vol 82, pp 47–111. Elsevier

  14. Gandhi A, Harchol-Balter M, Raghunathan R, Kozuch MA (2012) Autoscale: dynamic, robust capacity management for multi-tier data centers. ACM Trans Comput Syst 30(4):14

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deboosere L, Vankeirsbilck B, Simoens P, De Turck F, Dhoedt B, Demeester P (2012) Efficient resource management for virtual desktop cloud computing. J Supercomput 62(2):741–767

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kumar N, Zeadally S, Chilamkurti N, Vinel A (2015) Performance analysis of bayesian coalition game-based energy-aware virtual machine migration in vehicular mobile cloud. IEEE Network 29(2):62–69

    Google Scholar 

  17. Clark C, Fraser K, Hand S, Hansen JG, Jul E, Limpach C, Pratt I, Warfield A (2005) Live migration of virtual machines. In: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on symposium on networked systems design & implementation, vol 2, pp 273–286. USENIX Association

  18. Huang Z, Tsang DHK (2016) M-convex vm consolidation: Towards a better vm workload consolidation. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 4(4):415–428

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Li J, Li D, Ye Y, Xicheng L (2015) Efficient multi-tenant virtual machine allocation in cloud data centers. Tsinghua Sci Technol 20(1):81–89

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vogels W (2008) Beyond server consolidation. Queue 6(1):20–26

    Google Scholar 

  21. Murtazaev A, Sangyoon O (2011) Sercon: Server consolidation algorithm using live migration of virtual machines for green computing. IETE Tech Rev 28(3):212–231

    Google Scholar 

  22. Marzolla M, Babaoglu O, Panzieri F (2011) Server consolidation in clouds through gossiping

  23. Beloglazov A, Abawajy J, Buyya R (2012) Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for cloud computing. Future Gener Comput Syst 28(5):755–768

    Google Scholar 

  24. Beloglazov A, Buyya R (2012) Optimal online deterministic algorithms and adaptive heuristics for energy and performance efficient dynamic consolidation of virtual machines in cloud data centers. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 24(13):1397–1420

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fei X, Liu F, Jin H (2016) Heterogeneity and interference-aware virtual machine provisioning for predictable performance in the cloud. IEEE Trans Comput 65(8):2470–2483

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Tao F, Li C, Liao TW, Laili Y (2016) Bgm-bla: a new algorithm for dynamic migration of virtual machines in cloud computing. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 9(6):910–925

    Google Scholar 

  27. Feller E, Morin C, Esnault A (2012) A case for fully decentralized dynamic vm consolidation in clouds. In: 2012 IEEE 4th international conference on cloud computing technology and science (CloudCom), pp 26–33. IEEE

  28. Ajiro Y, Tanaka A (2007) Improving packing algorithms for server consolidation. Int CMG Conf 253:399–406

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wang M, Meng X, Zhang L (2011) Consolidating virtual machines with dynamic bandwidth demand in data centers. Infocom 201:71–75

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wood T, Shenoy P, Venkataramani A, Yousif M (2009) Sandpiper: Black-box and gray-box resource management for virtual machines. Comput Netw 53(17):2923–2938

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Lv H, Dong Y, Duan J, Tian K (2012) Virtualization challenges: a view from server consolidation perspective. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol 47, pp 15–26. ACM

  32. Zhu Q, Zhu J, Agrawal G (2010) Power-aware consolidation of scientific workflows in virtualized environments. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM/IEEE international conference for high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis, pp 1–12. IEEE Computer Society

  33. Fei X, Liu F, Liu L, Jin H, Li B, Li B (2014) iaware: Making live migration of virtual machines interference-aware in the cloud. IEEE Trans Comput 63(12):3012–3025

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Palanisamy B, Singh A, Liu L (2015) Cost-effective resource provisioning for mapreduce in a cloud. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(5):1265–1279

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wood T, Ramakrishnan KK, Shenoy P, Van Der Merwe J, Hwang J, Liu G, Chaufournier L (2015) Cloudnet: dynamic pooling of cloud resources by live wan migration of virtual machines. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 23(5):1568–1583

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wang C, Liu C, Liu B, Dong Y (2014) Div: Dynamic integrity validation framework for detecting compromises on virtual machine based cloud services in real time. China Commun 11(8):15–27

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hao W, Ren S, Garzoglio G, Timm S, Bernabeu G, Chadwick K, Noh S-Y (2016) A reference model for virtual machine launching overhead. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 4(3):250–264

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stress Tool to impose load on and stress test systems. http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/bionic/man1/stress.1.html. Accessed 07 Oct 2018

  39. FreeNAS open source bsd licensed. https://www.freenas.org. Accessed 06 May 2018

  40. SPECjvm2008 real-life applications and benchmarks workloads. https://www.spec.org/jvm2008. Accessed 15 Jan 2020

  41. ApacheBench measuring the performance of HTTP web servers. https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/programs/ab.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2020

  42. Alexey Kopytov. Sysbench: a system performance benchmark. Accessed 15 Jan 2020

  43. Abadi M, Barham P, Chen J, Chen Z, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Irving G, Isard M et al (2016) Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In: 12th \(\{\)USENIX\(\}\) symposium on operating systems design and implementation (\(\{\)OSDI\(\}\) 16), pp 265–283

  44. LeCun Y, Cortes C, Burges CJ (2010) Mnist handwritten digit database. at&t labs

  45. Vm live migration script. https://github.com/oalrajeh/VMLiveMigration. Accessed 15 Jan 2020

  46. Unix top. http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/xenial/man1/top.1.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2020

  47. Ping send icmp echo request to network hosts. http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages /cosmic/man8/ping.8.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2020

  48. Akoush S, Sohan R, Rice A, Moore AW, Hopper A (2010) Predicting the performance of virtual machine migration. In: 2010 IEEE international symposium on modeling, analysis and simulation of computer and telecommunication systems, pp 37–46. IEEE

  49. Alrajeh O, Forshaw M, Thomas N (2017) Machine learning models for predicting timely virtual machine live migration. In: European workshop on performance engineering, pp 169–183. Springer

  50. Voorsluys W, Broberg J, Venugopal S, Buyya R (2009) Cost of virtual machine live migration in clouds: A performance evaluation. In: IEEE international conference on cloud computing, pp 254–265. Springer

  51. Jin H, Deng L, Wu S, Shi X, Pan X (2009) Live virtual machine migration with adaptive, memory compression. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on cluster computing and workshops, pp 1–10. IEEE

  52. Deshpande U, Kulkarni U, Gopalan K (2012) Inter-rack live migration of multiple virtual machines. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on virtualization technologies in distributed computing date, pp 19–26

  53. Hu W, Hicks A, Zhang L, Dow EM, Soni V, Jiang H, Bull R, Matthews JN (2013) A quantitative study of virtual machine live migration. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM cloud and autonomic computing conference, pp 1–10

  54. Rybina K, Patni A, Schill A (2014) Analysing the migration time of live migration of multiple virtual machines. CLOSER 14:590–597

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lublin U, Kamay Y, Laor D, Liguori A (2007) Kvm: the linux virtual machine monitor

  56. Bradford R, Kotsovinos E, Feldmann A, Schiöberg H (2007) Live wide-area migration of virtual machines including local persistent state. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Virtual execution environments, pp 169–179

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Technology, G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur, India

    Chetan Dhule

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur, India

    Urmila Shrawankar

Authors
  1. Chetan Dhule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Urmila Shrawankar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chetan Dhule.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dhule, C., Shrawankar, U. POF-SVLM: pareto optimized framework for seamless VM live migration. Computing 102, 2159–2183 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-020-00815-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-020-00815-8

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation