Enrique V. Carrera
ABSTRACT
Efficiency and portability are conflicting objectives for cluster-based network servers that distribute the clients' requests across the cluster based on the actual content requested. Our work is based on the observation that this efficiency vs. portability tradeoff has not been fully evaluated in the literature. To fill this gap, in this paper we use modeling and experimentation to study this tradeoff in the context of an interesting class of content-based network servers, the locality-conscious servers, under different inter-node communication subsystems. Based on our results, our main conclusion is that portability should be promoted in cluster-based network servers with low processor overhead, given its relatively low cost ($\leq$ 16%) in terms of throughput performance. For clusters with high processor overhead communication, efficiency should be the overriding concern, as the cost of portability can be very high (as high as 107% on 96 nodes). We also conclude that user-level communication can be useful even for non-scientific applications such as network servers.
- 1.M. Arlit and C. Williamson. Web Server Workload Characterization: The Search for Invariants. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, May 1996.]] Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.M. Aron, P. Druschel, and W. Zwaenepoel. Efficient Suppor for P-HTTP in Clus er-Based Web Servers. In Proceedings of USENIX '99 Technical Conference, June 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3.M. Aron, D. Sanders, P. Druschel, and W. Zwaenepoel. Scalable Content-Aware Request Distribution in Cluster-Based Network Servers. In Proceedings on USENIX '2000 Technical Conference, June 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 4.A. Beslavros, M. Crovella, J. Liu, and D. Martin. Distributed Packe Rewriting and its Application to Scalable Server Architectures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Network Protocols, October 1998.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5.R. Bianchini and E. V. Carrera. Analytical and Experimental Evaluation of Cluster-Based WWW Servers. World Wide Web journal, 2000. Earlier version published as TR 718, Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester, August 1999, Revised April 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 6.L. Breslau, P. Cao, L. Fan, G. Phillips, and S. Shenker. Web Caching and Zipf-like Distributions: Evidence and Implications. In Proceedings of IEEE InfoCom'99, pages 126-134, March 1999.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- 7.E. V. Carrera and R. Bianchini. Evaluating Cluster-Based Network Servers. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, pages 63-70, August 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8.F. Chong, R. Barua, F. Dahlgren, J. Kubiatowicz, and A. Agarwal. The Sensitivity of Communication Mechanisms of Bandwidth and Latency.In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, January 1998.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9.Cisco LocalDirector. http://www.cisco.com/, 2000.]]Google Scholar
- 10.M. Dahlin, R. Yang, T. Anderson, and D. Paterson. Cooperative Caching: Using Remote Clien Memory of Improve File System Performance. In Proceedings of USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, November 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11.D. M. Dias, W. Kish, R. Mukherjee, and R. Tewari. A Scalable and Highly Available Web Server. In Proceedings of COMPCON'96, pages 85-92, 1996.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12.L. Fan, P. Cao, J. Almeida, and A. Broder. Summary Cache: A Scalable Wide-Area Web Cache Sharing Protocol. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM '98, pages 254-265, 1998.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13.V. Holmedahl, B. Smith, and T. Yang. Cooperative Caching of Dynamic Content on a Distributed Web Server. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, pages 243-250, July 1998.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14.IBM SecureWay Network Dispatcher. http://www.software.ibm.com/network/dispatcher, 2000.]]Google Scholar
- 15.R. Martin, A. Vahdat, D. Culler, and T. Anderson. Effects of Communication Latency, Overhead, and Bandwidth in a Cluster Architecture. In Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, June 1997.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16.V. Pai, M. Aron, G. Banga, M. Svendsen, P. Druschel, W. Zwaenepoel, and E. Nahum. Locality-Aware Reques Distribution in Cluster-based Network Servers. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pages 205-216, October 1998.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17.V. Pai, P. Druschel, and W. Zwaenepoel. Flash: An Efficient and Portable Web Server. In Proceedings of USENIX '99 Technical Conference, June 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18.M. Rangarajan and L. Ifode. Software Distributed Shared Memory over Virtual Interface Architecture: Implementation and Performance. In Proceedings of the 3rd Extreme Linux Workshop, October 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 19.Piranha Load-Balanced Web and FTP Clusters. http://www.redhat.com/support/wpapers/piranha/, 2000.]]Google Scholar
- 20.Resonate Cen ral Dispatch. http://www.resonateinc.com/,1999.]]Google Scholar
- 21.Y. Saito, B. Bershad, and H. Levy. Manageability, Availability and Performance in Porcupine: A Highly Scalable, Cluster-Based Mail Service. In Proceedings of 17th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, December 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- 22.R. Steffs, S. Dwarkadas, L. Kontothanassis, U. Rencuzogullari, and M. Scott. The Effiecient of Network Total Order, Broadcast, and Remote-Write Capability on Network-Based Shared Memory Computing. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, January 2000.]]Google Scholar
- 23.H. Zhu, B. Smith, and T. Yang. A Scheduling Optimization for Resource-Intensive Web Requests on Server Clusters. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pages 13-22, June 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Efficiency vs. portability in cluster-based network servers
Recommendations
Efficiency vs. portability in cluster-based network servers
Efficiency and portability are conflicting objectives for cluster-based network servers that distribute the clients' requests across the cluster based on the actual content requested. Our work is based on the observation that this efficiency vs. ...
Locality-aware request distribution in cluster-based network servers
We consider cluster-based network servers in which a front-end directs incoming requests to one of a number of back-ends. Specifically, we consider content-based request distribution: the front-end uses the content requested, in addition to information ...
Locality-aware request distribution in cluster-based network servers
We consider cluster-based network servers in which a front-end directs incoming requests to one of a number of back-ends. Specifically, we consider content-based request distribution: the front-end uses the content requested, in addition to information ...
Comments