skip to main content
10.1145/1996130.1996151acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshpdcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Live gang migration of virtual machines

Published:08 June 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper addresses the problem of simultaneously migrating a group of co-located and live virtual machines (VMs), i.e, VMs executing on the same physical machine. We refer to such a mass simultaneous migration of active VMs as "live gang migration". Cluster administrators may often need to perform live gang migration for load balancing, system maintenance, or power savings. Application performance requirements may dictate that the total migration time, network traffic overhead, and service downtime, be kept minimal when migrating multiple VMs. State-of-the-art live migration techniques optimize the migration of a single VM. In this paper, we optimize the simultaneous live migration of multiple co-located VMs. We present the design, implementation, and evaluation of a de-duplication based approach to perform concurrent live migration of co-located VMs. Our approach transmits memory content that is identical across VMs only once during migration to significantly reduce both the total migration time and network traffic. Using the QEMU/KVM platform, we detail a proof-of-concept prototype implementation of two types of de-duplication strategies (at page level and sub-page level) and a differential compression approach to exploit content similarity across VMs. Evaluations over Gigabit Ethernet with various types of VM workloads demonstrate that our prototype for live gang migration can achieve significant reductions in both network traffic and total migration time.

References

  1. Superfasthash www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/hash.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Arcangeli, I. Eidus, and C. Wright. Increasing memory density by using ksm. In Proc. of Linux Symposium, July 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. F. Bellard. Qemu, a fast and portable dynamic translator. In Proc. of USENIX Annual Technical Conference, April 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Bobroff, A. Kochut, and K. Beaty. Dynamic placement of virtual machines for managing sla violations. In Proc. of Integrated Network Management, page 119--128, May 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. C. Clark, K. Fraser, S. Hand, J.G. Hansen, E. Jul, C. Limpach, I. Pratt, and A. Warfield. Live migration of virtual machines. In Proc. of Network System Design and Implementation, May 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Dbench. http://samba.org/ftp/tridge/dbench.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Gupta, S. Lee, M. Vrable, S. Savage, A. C Snoeren, G. Varghese, G. M Voelker, and A. Vahdat. Difference engine: Harnessing memory redundancy in virtual machines. In Proc. of Operating Systems Design and Implementation, December 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J.G. Hansen and E. Jul. Self-migration of operating systems. In Proc. of ACM SIGOPS European Workshop, September 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Hines, U. Deshpande, and K. Gopalan. Post-copy live migration of virtual machines. SIGOPS Operating Syst. Review, 43(3):14--26, July 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. W. Huang, M. Koop, Q. Gao,, and D.K. Panda. Virtual machine aware communication libraries for high performance computing. In Proc. of SuperComputing, November 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. H. Jin, L. Deng, S. Wu, X. Shi, and X. Pan. Live virtual machine migration with adaptive, memory compression. In Proc. of Cluster Computing and Workshops, August 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. K. Kim, C. Kim, S-I. Jung, H Shin, and J-S. Kim. Inter-domain socket communications supporting high performance and full binary compatibility on xen. In Proc. of Virtual Execution Environments, March 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Kivity, Y. Kamay, D. Laor, U. Lublin, and A. Liguori. Kvm: The linux virtual machine monitor. In Proc. of Linux Symposium, June 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. MacDonald. Xdelta http://www.xdelta.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. V. Makhija, B. Herndon, P. Smith, L. Roderick, E. Zamost, and J. Anderson. VMmark: A scalable benchmark for virtualized systems. Technical Report 2006-002, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Milos, D.G. Murray, S. Hand, and M.A. Fetterman. Satori: Enlightened page sharing. In Proc. of USENIX Annual Technical Conference, June 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. MySQL. MySQL Cluster http://www.mysql.com/products/database/cluster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Nelson, B. H Lim, and G. Hutchins. Fast transparent migration for virtual machines. In Proc. of USENIX Annual Technical Conference, April 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. P. Riteau, C. Morin, and T. Priol. Shrinker: Efficient wide area live virtual machine migration using distributed content-based addressing. In http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00454727/en/, February 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. C. P Sapuntzakis, R. Chandra, B. Pfaff, J. Chow, M. S Lam, and M. Rosenblum. Optimizing the migration of virtual computers. In Proc. of Operating Systems Design and Implementation, December 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. VMWare Distributed Resource Scheduler. http://www.vmware.com/products/vi/vc/drs.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sysbench. Sysbench benchmark http://sysbench.sourceforge.net/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. TCPDUMP. http://www.tcpdump.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. TPC-H Benchmark. http://www.tpc.org/tpch/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. Verma, P. Ahuja, and A. Neogi. pMapper: power and migration cost aware application placement in virtualized systems. In International Conference on Middleware, December 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. A. Waldspurger. Memory resource management in VMware ESX server. In Proc. of Operating Systems Design and Implementation, December 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. Wang, K. L Wright, and K. Gopalan. XenLoop: a transparent high performance inter-vm network loopback. In Proc. of High performance distributed computing, June 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. T. Wood, K. Ramakrishnan, J. van der Merwe, and P. Shenoy. CloudNet: a platform for optimized WAN migration of virtual machines. University of Massachusetts Technical Report TR-2010, 2, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. T. Wood, P. Shenoy, A. Venkataramani, and M. Yousif. Sandpiper: Black-box and gray-box resource management for virtual machines. The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, 53(17), December 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. X. Zhang, Z. Huo, J. Ma, and D. Meng. Exploiting data deduplication to accelerate live virtual machine migration. In Proc. of International Conference on Cluster Computing, September 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. X. Zhang, S. McIntosh, P. Rohatgi, and J. L. Griffin. Xensocket: a high-throughput interdomain transport for virtual machines. In Proc. of International Conference on Middleware, November 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Live gang migration of virtual machines

    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
      HPDC '11: Proceedings of the 20th international symposium on High performance distributed computing
      June 2011
      296 pages
      ISBN:9781450305525
      DOI:10.1145/1996130

      Copyright © 2011 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: 8 June 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate166of966submissions,17%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader