skip to main content
10.1145/3344341.3368801acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesuccConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Tensor-Based Resource Utilization Characterization in a Large-Scale Cloud Infrastructure

Published:02 December 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The introduction of virtualization and cloud computing has enabled a large number of containers/virtual machines to share computing resources. Nevertheless, the number and size of data centres are still on the rise, partly on account of an ever increasing amount of generated data and workloads worldwide. On the other hand, independent studies indicate that a large number of servers in contemporary data centres are underutilised. One of the strategies currently adopted by the research community in order to deal with resource inefficiency is dynamic workload consolidation. The idea behind is dynamically balancing the supply of computing, communication, and storage resources with the demand for resources. This entails populating physical servers with an optimal number of complementary workloads. Most existing or proposed approaches employ multi-variate optimisation to achieve this goal but do not easily lend themselves to fast and intuitive solutions. In this paper, we investigate the scope and usefulness of dimensionality reduction techniques (tensor decomposition) to identify execution and resource utilisation patterns in hosted containers/virtual machines. Our analysis is based on two large-scale data centres, one of them hosts 1190 commercial virtual machines on 59 physical computing servers and 29 physical storage servers organised in 9 clusters and the other 44373 containers on 3985 physical servers. Our analysis shows that spatial and temporal patters can be uncovered with tensor decomposition, based on which efficient clustering can be realised.

References

  1. Claudia Canali and Riccardo Lancellotti. 2014. Improving scalability of cloud monitoring through PCA-based clustering of virtual machines. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 29, 1 (2014), 38--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Carlo Curino, Subru Krishnan, Konstantinos Karanasos, Sriram Rao, Giovanni Matteo Fumarola, Botong Huang, Kishore Chaliparambil, Arun Suresh, Young Chen, Solom Heddaya, et al. 2019. Hydra: a federated resource manager for data-center scale analytics.. In NSDI. 177--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Waltenegus Dargie. 2014. A stochastic model for estimating the power consumption of a processor. IEEE Trans. Comput. 64, 5 (2014), 1311--1322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Md Hasanul Ferdaus, Manzur Murshed, Rodrigo N Calheiros, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2014. Virtual machine consolidation in cloud data centers using ACO metaheuristic. In European Conference on Parallel Processing. Springer, 306--317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Mostafa Ghobaei-Arani, Sam Jabbehdari, and Mohammad Ali Pourmina. 2018. An autonomic resource provisioning approach for service-based cloud applications: A hybrid approach. Future Generation Computer Systems 78 (2018), 191--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Paul C Gilmore and Ralph E Gomory. 1961. A linear programming approach to the cutting-stock problem. Operations research 9, 6 (1961), 849--859.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Gene H Golub and Christian Reinsch. 1971. Singular value decomposition and least squares solutions. In Linear Algebra. Springer, 134--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Markus Haehnel, John Martinovic, Guntram Scheithauer, Andreas Fischer, Alexander Schill, and Waltenegus Dargie. 2018. Extending the Cutting Stock Problem for Consolidating Services with StochasticWorkloads. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kai Hwang and Naresh Jotwani. 2016. Advanced Computer Architecture, 3e. McGraw-Hill Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Tamara G Kolda and BrettWBader. 2009. Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM review 51, 3 (2009), 455--500.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. John Martinovic, Markus Hähnel, Guntram Scheithauer, Waltenegus Dargie, and Andreas Fischer. 2019. Cutting stock problems with nondeterministic item lengths: a new approach to server consolidation. 4OR 17, 2 (2019), 173--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Christoph Möbius, Waltenegus Dargie, and Alexander Schill. 2013. Power consumption estimation models for processors, virtual machines, and servers. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 25, 6 (2013), 1600--1614.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Roberto Morabito, Vittorio Cozzolino, Aaron Yi Ding, Nicklas Beijar, and Jorg Ott. 2018. Consolidate IoT edge computing with lightweight virtualization. IEEE Network 32, 1 (2018), 102--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Trung Hieu Nguyen, Mario Di Francesco, and Antti Yla-Jaaski. 2017. Virtual machine consolidation with multiple usage prediction for energy-efficient cloud data centers. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ali Pahlevan, Xiaoyu Qu, Marina Zapater, and David Atienza. 2017. Integrating Heuristic and Machine-Learning Methods for Efficient Virtual Machine Allocation in Data Centers. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Maolin Tang and Shenchen Pan. 2015. A hybrid genetic algorithm for the energyefficient virtual machine placement problem in data centers. Neural Processing Letters 41, 2 (2015), 211--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Adel Nadjaran Toosi, Richard O Sinnott, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2018. Resource provisioning for data-intensive applications with deadline constraints on hybrid clouds using Aneka. Future Generation Computer Systems 79 (2018), 765--775.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Thang X Vu, Symeon Chatzinotas, and Bjorn Ottersten. 2018. Edge-caching wireless networks: Performance analysis and optimization. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 17, 4 (2018), 2827--2839.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Lei Yu, Liuhua Chen, Zhipeng Cai, Haiying Shen, Yi Liang, and Yi Pan. 2016. Stochastic Load Balancing for Virtual Resource Management in Datacenters. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing PP, 99 (2016), 1--1. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TCC.2016.2525984Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Alice Zheng and Amanda Casari. 2018. Feature engineering for machine learning: principles and techniques for data scientists. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Tensor-Based Resource Utilization Characterization in a Large-Scale Cloud Infrastructure

      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
        UCC'19: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing
        December 2019
        307 pages
        ISBN:9781450368940
        DOI:10.1145/3344341

        Copyright © 2019 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: 2 December 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate38of125submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader