skip to main content
10.1145/2670979.2671000acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
tutorial

Vagabond: Dynamic Network Endpoint Reconfiguration in Virtualized Environments

Authors Info & Claims
Published:03 November 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

One of the biggest challenges of virtualization today is to efficiently share and manage network devices among different virtual machines (VMs). Software-based network virtualization solutions like device emulation and split driver device models have advantages of resource sharing and fine grained hypervisor resource control. However, software based approaches have performance and scalability impediments due to the software interventions for every I/O activity. Recent hardware advancements in network devices allow in-device partitioning and assignment of network functions to different guest operating systems. The nature of the assignment is static which gives rise to inflexibility in efficient network resource management. Additionally, fine grained hypervisor control on the network device is compromised because of the direct hardware assignment to the guest virtual machine.

In this work, we propose Vagabond, an alternate network virtualization model that supports flexible and dynamic assignment of network resources to guest VMs. The most significant advantage of the proposed model is to facilitate a framework to manage network resources efficiently when the number of hardware in-device partitions are less than the number of VMs. Additionally the advantages of software based network virtualization are kept intact to overcome the difficulties posed due to direct hardware assignment to the guest. Our experimental evaluation shows that the CPU resource overhead with Vagabond is up to 2x lower than the software approach. Compared to the direct hardware assignment, Vagabond incurs an additional overhead of 17% in the best case. We demonstrate the applicability and usage of Vagabond with two use cases: live migration of VMs connected to hardware in-device partitions and a fair-share network resource allocation scheme.

References

  1. Linux integration services version 3.4 for hyper-v. URL http://www.microsoft.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Developer's Manual: Vol. 3B. URL www.intel.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Linux new api (napi). URL http://www.linuxfoundation.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Intel documentation, PCI-SIG SR-IOV Primer: An Introduction to SR-IOV Technology. URL http://www.intel.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Intel Gigabit ET/ET2/EF Multi-Port Server Adapters. URL http://www.intel.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d): Enhancing Intel platforms for efficient virtualization of I/O devices. URL www.software.intel.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. P. Barham, B. Dragovic, K. Fraser, S. Hand, T. Harris, A. Ho, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt, and A. Warfield. Xen and the art of virtualization. SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 37(5): 164--177, Oct. 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. Bellard. QEMU, a Fast and Portable Dynamic Translator. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 41--46, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. Chisnall. The Definitive Guide to the Xen Hypervisor. Prentice Hall Press, first edition, 2007. ISBN 9780132349710. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. C. Clark, K. Fraser, S. Hand, J. G. Hansen, E. Jul, C. Limpach, I. Pratt, and A. Warfield. Live Migration of Virtual Machines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), pages 273--286, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. B. Cully, G. Lefebvre, D. Meyer, M. Feeley, N. Hutchinson, and A. Warfield. Remus: High Availability via Asynchronous Virtual Machine Replication. In Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI), pages 161--174, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Y. Dong, D. Xu, Y. Zhang, and G. Liao. Optimizing Network I/O Virtualization with Efficient Interrupt Coalescing and Virtual Receive Side Scaling. In Conference on Cluster Computing (CLUSTER), pages 26--34, Sept 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Y. Dong, Y. Chen, Z. Pan, J. Dai, and Y. Jiang. ReNIC: Architectural Extension to SR-IOV I/O Virtualization for Efficient Replication. ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, 8(4):40:1--40:22, Jan 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Y. Dong, X. Yang, J. Li, G. Liao, K. Tian, and H. Guan. High performance network virtualization with SR-IOV. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 72(11):1471--1480, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. K. Fraser, S. H, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt, A. Warfield, and M. Williamson. Safe hardware access with the Xen virtual machine monitor. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Operating System and Architectural Support for the on demand IT InfraStructure (OASIS), pages 1--10, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. E. Keller, J. Szefer, J. Rexford, and R. B. Lee. NoHype: Virtualized Cloud Infrastructure without the Virtualization. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ICSA), pages 350--361, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Kivity. kvm: the Linux virtual machine monitor. In The Ottawa Linux Symposium (OLS), pages 225--230, July 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Liu. Evaluating standard-based self-virtualizing devices: A performance study on 10 GbE NICs with SR-IOV support. In Parallel Distributed Processing (IPDPS), pages 1--12, April 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. D. E. Lowell, Y. Saito, and E. J. Samberg. Devirtualizable virtual machines enabling general, single-node, online maintenance. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 211--223, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Mansley, G. Law, D. Riddoch, G. Barzini, N. Turton, and S. Pope. Getting 10 Gb/s from Xen: Safe and Fast Device Access from Unprivileged Domains. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Parallel Processing, Euro-Par, pages 224--233, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Menon, J. R. Santos, Y. Turner, G. J. Janakiraman, and W. Zwaenepoel. Diagnosing Performance Overheads in the Xen Virtual Machine Environment. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Virtual Execution Environments (VEE), pages 13--23, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. A. Menon, A. L. Cox, and W. Zwaenepoel. Optimizing Network Virtualization in Xen. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. K. Menychtas, K. Shen, and M. L. Scott. Disengaged Scheduling for Fair, Protected Access to Fast Computational Accelerators. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 301--316, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. Niranjan Mysore, G. Porter, and A. Vahdat. FasTrak: Enabling Express Lanes in Multi-tenant Data Centers. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, (CoNEXT), pages 139--150, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Z. Pan, Y. Dong, Y. Chen, L. Zhang, and Z. Zhang. CompSC: Live Migration with Pass-through Devices. SIGPLAN Notices, 47(7):109--120, Mar 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. H. Raj and K. Schwan. High Performance and Scalable I/O Virtualization via Self-virtualized Devices. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, HPDC, pages 179--188, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. K. K. Ram, J. R. Santos, Y. Turner, A. L. Cox, and S. Rixner. Achieving 10 Gb/s Using Safe and Transparent Network Interface Virtualization. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Virtual Execution Environments (VEE), pages 61--70, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. K. K. Ram, J. R. Santos, and Y. Turner. Redesigning Xen's Memory Sharing Mechanism for Safe and Efficient I/O Virtualization. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on I/O Virtualization (WIOV), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. S. Rixner. Network Virtualization: Breaking the Performance Barrier. ACM Queue, 6(1):37:36--37:, 2008. ISSN 1542-7730. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. R. Russell. Virtio: Towards a De-facto Standard for Virtual I/O Devices. SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 42(5):95--103, Jul 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. R. Santos, Y. Turner, G. Janakiraman, and I. Pratt. Bridging the Gap Between Software and Hardware Techniques for I/O Virtualization. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 29--42, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. J. Sugerman, G. Venkitachalam, and B.-H. Lim. Virtualizing I/O Devices on VMware Workstation's Hosted Virtual Machine Monitor. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 1--14, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. S. Tripathi, N. Droux, T. Srinivasan, and K. Belgaied. Cross-bow: From Hardware Virtualized NICs to Virtualized Networks. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Virtualized Infrastructure Systems and Architectures, (VISA), pages 53--62, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. C. A. Waldspurger. Memory resource management in VMware ESX server. SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 36(SI):181--194, Dec. 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. P. Willmann, J. Shafer, D. Carr, S. Rixner, A. Cox, W. Zwaenepoel, and W. Zwaenepoel. Concurrent Direct Network Access for Virtual Machine Monitors. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture, (HPCA), pages 306--317, Feb 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Vagabond: Dynamic Network Endpoint Reconfiguration in Virtualized Environments

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              SOCC '14: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing
              November 2014
              383 pages
              ISBN:9781450332521
              DOI:10.1145/2670979

              Copyright © 2014 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 3 November 2014

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • tutorial
              • Research
              • Refereed limited

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate169of722submissions,23%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader