skip to main content
10.1145/3322798.3329256acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshpdcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Time Series Analysis for Efficient Sample Transfers

Published:17 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Real-time transfer optimization approaches offer promising solutions as they can discover optimal transfer configuration in the runtime without requiring an upfront work or making assumptions about underlying system architectures. On the other hand, existing implementations suffer from slow convergence speed due to running many sample transfers with suboptimal configurations. In this work, we evaluate time-series models to minimize the impact of sample transfers with suboptimal configurations by shortening the transfer duration without degrading the accuracy. The results gathered in various networks with rich set of transfer configurations indicate that, in most cases, Autoregressive model can accurately estimate sample transfer throughput in less than 5 seconds which is up-to 4x improvement over the state-of-the-art solution. We also realized that while the most common transfer applications report transfer throughput at most once a second, decreasing the reporting interval is the key to further reduce the impact of sample transfers by quickly determining their performance.

References

  1. Ismail Alan, Engin Arslan, and Tevfik Kosar. 2015. Energy-aware data transfer algorithms. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis. ACM, 44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. William Allcock, John Bresnahan, Rajkumar Kettimuthu, Michael Link, Catalin Dumitrescu, Ioan Raicu, and Ian Foster. 2005. The Globus striped GridFTP framework and server. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM/IEEE conference on Supercomputing. IEEE Computer Society, 54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. B. Allen, J. Bresnahan, L. Childers, I. Foster, G. Kandaswamy, R. Kettimuthu, J. Kordas, M. Link, S. Martin, K. Pickett, and S. Tuecke. 2012. Software as a Service for Data Scientists. Commun. ACM 55:2 (2012), 81--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Engin Arslan, Kemal Guner, and Tevfik Kosar. 2016. HARP: Predictive Transfer Optimization Based on Historical Analysis and Real-time Probing. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC '16). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, Article 25, 12 pages. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3014904.3014938 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Engin Arslan and Tevfik Kosar. 2018. High-Speed Transfer Optimization Based on Historical Analysis and Real-Time Tuning. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 29, 6 (2018), 1303--1316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Engin Arslan, Bahadir A Pehlivan, and Tevfik Kosar. 2018. Big data transfer optimization through adaptive parameter tuning. J. Parallel and Distrib. Comput. 120 (2018), 89--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Engin Arslan, Brandon Ross, and Tevfik Kosar. 2013. Dynamic Protocol Tuning Algorithms for High Performance Data Transfers. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Parallel Processing (Euro-Par'13). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 725--736. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Prasanna Balaprakash, Vitali Morozov, Rajkumar Kettimuthu, Kalyan Kumaran, and Ian Foster. 2016. Improving data transfer throughput with direct search optimization. In Parallel Processing (ICPP), 2016 45th International Conference on. IEEE, 248--257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. CMS. {n. d.}. The US Compact Muon Solenoid Project. http://uscms.fnal.gov/. ({n. d.}).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. N. Freed. {n. d.}. SMTP service extension for command pipelining. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2920. ({n. d.}). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. J. Hacker, B. D. Noble, and B. D. Atley. 2005. Adaptive Data Block Scheduling for Parallel Streams. In Proceedings of HPDC '05. ACM/IEEE, 265--275. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Andreas Hanemann, Jeff W Boote, Eric L Boyd, Jérôme Durand, Loukik Kudarimoti, Roman apacz, D Martin Swany, Szymon Trocha, and Jason Zurawski. 2005. Perfsonar: A service oriented architecture for multi-domain network monitoring. In International conference on service-oriented computing. Springer, 241--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. T. Ito, H. Ohsaki, and M. Imase. 2008. On parameter tuning of data transfer protocol GridFTP for Wide-Area Networks. International Journal of Computer Science and Engineering 2(4) (Sept. 2008), 177--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Rajkumar Kettimuthu, Gayane Vardoyan, Gagan Agrawal, and P Sadayappan. 2014. Modeling and optimizing large-scale wide-area data transfers. In Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGrid), 2014 14th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on. IEEE, 196--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J.T. Kiehl, J. J. Hack, G. B. Bonan, B. A. Boville, D. L. Williamson, and P. J. Rasch. 1998. The National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model: CCM3. Journal of Climate 11:6 (1998), 1131--1149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Youngjae Kim, Scott Atchley, Geoffroy R Vallée, and Galen M Shipman. 2015. {LADS}: Optimizing Data Transfers Using Layout-Aware Data Scheduling. In 13th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies ({FAST} 15). 67--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Richard J. T. Klein, Robert J. Nicholls, and Frank Thomalla. 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 5, 1--2 (2003), 35 -- 45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. T. Kosar and M. Balman. 2009. A New Paradigm: Data-Aware Scheduling in Grid Computing. Future Generation Computing Systems 25, 4 (2009), 406--413. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Chenghao Liu, Imed Bouazizi, and Moncef Gabbouj. 2011. Rate adaptation for adaptive HTTP streaming. In Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on Multimedia systems. ACM, 169--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Zhengchun Liu, Rajkumar Kettimuthu, Ian Foster, and Peter H Beckman. 2018. Toward a smart data transfer node. Future Generation Computer Systems (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. MD S. Q. Zulkar Nine, Kemal Guner, and Tevfik Kosar. 2015. Hysteresis-based Optimization of Data Transfer Throughput. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Network-Aware Data Management (NDM '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 9 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Suraj Pandey and Rajkumar Buyya. 2012. Scheduling workflow applications based on multi-source parallel data retrieval in distributed computing networks. Comput. J. 55, 11 (2012), 1288--1308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Nageswara SV Rao, Qiang Liu, Satyabrata Sen, Greg Hinkel, Neena Imam, Ian Foster, Rajkumar Kettimuthu, Bradley W Settlemyer, Chase Q Wu, and Daqing Yun. 2016. Experimental analysis of file transfer rates over wide-area dedicated connections. In IEEE 18th High Performance Computing and Communications. IEEE, 198--205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. E. Yildirim, E. Arslan, J. Kim, and T. Kosar. 2015. Application-Level Optimization of Big Data Transfers Through Pipelining, Parallelism and Concurrency. Cloud Computing, IEEE Transactions on PP, 99 (2015), 1--1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Esma Yildirim, Jangyoung Kim, and Tevfik Kosar. 2013. Modeling throughput sampling size for a cloud-hosted data scheduling and optimization service. Future Generation Computer Systems 29, 7 (2013), 1795--1807. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Esma Yildirim and Tevfik Kosar. 2011. Network-aware end-to-end data throughput optimization. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Networkaware data management (NDM '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. E. Yildirim, D. Yin, and T. Kosar. 2011. Prediction of Optimal Parallelism Level in Wide Area Data Transfers. IEEE TPDS 22(12) (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Daqing Yun, Chase Q Wu, Nageswara SV Rao, Qiang Liu, Rajkumar Kettimuthu, and Eun-Sung Jung. 2017. Data Transfer Advisor with Transport Profiling Optimization. In Local Computer Networks (LCN), 2017 IEEE 42nd Conference on. IEEE, 269--277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

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
    SNTA '19: Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Systems and Network Telemetry and Analytics
    June 2019
    58 pages
    ISBN:9781450367615
    DOI:10.1145/3322798
    • General Chairs:
    • Jinoh Kim,
    • Alex Sim

    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: 17 June 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    SNTA '19 Paper Acceptance Rate22of106submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate22of106submissions,21%

    Upcoming Conference

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader