Ming Mao, Jie Li, Marty Humphrey

eScience Group

CS Department, University of Virginia

Grid 2010 Oct 27, 2010
A fast growing computing platform
IDC - Cloud spending increases 27.4% a year to $56
billion (compared 5% a year of traditional IT)
$16.5 billion (2009) -> $55.5 billion (2014)
src: Worldwide and Regional Public IT Cloud Service 2010-2014 Forecast

Two most quoted benefits
Scalable computing and storage
Reduced cost

Concerns
Security, availability, cost management, integration
interoperability, etc.





Q1. Cost the most important factor in
practice?







Q2. Moving into Cloud == Reduced Cost ?

54.00%
63.90%
64.60%
67.00%
68.50%
75.30%
77.70%
77.90%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Seems like the way of future
Sharing systems wi th partners simpler
Alwasys offers latest functionality
Requires l ess in-house IT staff, costs
Encourages standard systems
Monthly payments
Easy/fast to deply to end-users
Pay only for what you use
Source: IDC Enterprise Panel, 3Q09, n = 263, Sep 2009
Rate the benefits commonly ascribed to the
cloud on-demand model
72.90%
78.30%
79.20%
81.00%
82.10%
84.50%
86.00%
87.80%
88.60%
91.60%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Have local presence, can come to my offices
Are a technology and business model innovator
Offer both on-premise and public cloud services
Support many of my IT needes
Allow managing on-premise & cloud together
Understand my business and industry
Provide a complete solution
Option to move cloud offeri ngs back on premise
Offer Service Level Agreements
Offer competitive pricing
Source: IDC Enterprise Panel, 3Q09, n = 263, Sep 2009
How important is it that Cloud service providers...
Resource utilization information based triggers (e.g.
AWS auto-scaling, RightScale, enStratus, Scalr, etc)


Multiple instance types



Current billing models
Full hour billing

Non-ignorable instance acquisition time
7-15 min in Windows Azure

More specific performance goals

Budget awareness (e.g. dollars/month, dollars/job)

Deadline
(Job finish time)

Cost

Problem Statement how to enable cloud
applications to finish all the submitted jobs
before user specified deadline with as little
money as possible using auto-scaling.
Cloud
Application
Users
Job
Cloud Server
Workload are non-dependent jobs submitted
in the job queue

FCFS manner and fairly distributed

Different classes of jobs

Same performance goal (e.g.1 hour deadline)

VM instances take time to startup

i
ji
n
i
j
i
V
i
I
i
d
i
V
, i j
t
Key variables used in the model
Workload


Computing Power of Instance

Running Instance




Pending Instance
( , )
j j
W J n =
, ( )
( , )
i
j
i j
j type I j
j
D n
P J
t n

( )
, ( )
( ( ))
( , )
i
i
type I i j
i j
j type I j
j
D d s n
P J
t n

=

i
I
Scale up
Sufficient budget

Insufficient budget


Scale down
'
i
i
P W P >

( ')
( )
i
type I
i
Min c

( ')
i
Max P
( ') ( )
i i
type I type I
i i
c C c s

i s
i
P P W >

Workload Required Computing Power

1
2
3
2
1
: 60 10 10 40
: 60 5 20 35
: 60 20 5 35
'
j x
j y
j z
P W I I
( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( (
> =
( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( (

1
2 1 2 3
3
1 2 3
: 10 10 10 45
: ' 5 ' 20 ' 10 35
: 20 5 10 35
'
j x
j n n n y
j z
V V V P
( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( (
+ + = >
( ( ( ( (
( ( ( ( (

1 1 2 2 3 3
( ' ' ') Min c n c n c n + +
1 2
1 1 2 2 3 3 ( ) ( )
' ' '
type I type I
c n c n c n c c C + + + + s
where

Cloud Cruise Control
Decider
&
Monitor Repository
VM
Manager
Config
VM instances
Historical
Data
workload
dequeue
enqueue
update update
+ ,
vm plan
vm info
( ')
( )
i
type I
i
Min c

'
j
j
P W P >
admin
users
dynamic
configuration
notify
Mix
Avg 30 jobs/hour
STD 5 jobs/hour
Computing
Intensive
Avg 30 jobs/hour
STD 5 jobs/hour
IO Intensive
Avg 30 jobs/hour
STD 5 jobs/hour
General
0.085$/hour
Delay 600s
Average 300s
STD 50s
Average 300s
STD 50s
Average 300s
STD 50s
High-CPU
0.17$/hour
Delay 720s
Average 210s
STD 25s
Average 75s
STD 15s
Average 300s
STD 50s
High-IO
0.17$/hour
Delay 720s
Average 210s
STD 25s
Average 300s
STD 50s
Average 75s
STD 15s
Workload & VM simulation parameters

0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Utilization (%) Response (sec)
Time (hour)
Stable Worload & Changing Deadline
utilization deadline avg max min

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Worload (job/h)
Response (sec)
Time (hour)
Changing Workload & Fixed Deadline
deadline avg max min workload
VM Types Total Cost ($)
% more than optimal
Choice #1 General 98.52$ (43%)
Choice #2 High-CPU 128.86$ (87%)
Choice #3 High-IO 129.71$ (88%)
Choice #4 General, High-CPU, High-IO 78.62$ (14%)
Optimal General, High-CPU, High-IO 68.85$
MODIS
200X Year Terra & Aqua Satellite
(X - Y) Day X to day Y 15 images / day

Moderate scale test (up to 20 instances)





Large Scale test (up to 90 instances)






* C.H. computing hour 1C.H. = 0.12$ in Windows Azure

1hour deadline 2hour deadline 3hour deadline
Terra 2004(10-12)
Total 45 jobs
4 C.H.* or 0.48$
18 min late 8 min early 20 min early
9 C.H.or 1.08$ 6 C.H or 0.72$ 5 C.H.or 0.6$
Aqua 2008(30-32)
Total 45 jobs
4 C.H. or 0.48$
15min late 20 min early 29 min early
10 C.H or 1.2$ 7 C.H.or 0.84$ 5 C.H.or 0.6$
2 hour deadline 4 hour deadline
Terra & Aqua 2006(1-75)
Total 1125 jobs
93 C.H. or 11.16$
20min late
170 C.H. or 20.4$
6 min early
132 C.H. or 15.84$
Terra & Aqua 2006(1-150)
Total 2250 jobs
185 C.H. or 22.2$
Admission Denied 22 min early
243 C.H. or 29.16$
Test: Terra & Aqua 2006(1-75) - total 1125 jobs
6min early
theoretical cost - 93 C.H. or 11.16$
actual cost - 132 C.H. or 15.84$
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
Time (hour)
I
n
s
t
a
n
c
e

N
u
m
b
e
r
Instance Acquisition and Release
Released Acquiring Ready
Conclusions
More cost-efficient than fixed-size instance choice
VM startup delay can affect hugely in practice

Future works
More general cloud application model
Multiple job classes
Consider other instance types (e.g. spot instances &
reserved instances)
Data transfer performance and storage cost