skip to main content
research-article

Using Burstable Instances in the Public Cloud: Why, When and How?

Published:13 June 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Amazon EC2 and Google Compute Engine (GCE) have recently introduced a new class of virtual machines called "burstable" instances that are cheaper than even the smallest traditional/regular instances. These lower prices come with reduced average capacity and increased variance. Using measurements from both EC2 and GCE, we identify key idiosyncrasies of resource capacity dynamism for burstable instances that set them apart from other instance types. Most importantly, certain resources for these instances appear to be regulated by deterministic token bucket like mechanisms. We find widely different types of disclosures by providers of the parameters governing these regulation mechanisms: full disclosure (e.g., CPU capacity for EC2 t2 instances), partial disclosure (e.g., CPU capacity and remote disk IO bandwidth for GCE shared-core instances), or no disclosure (network bandwidth for EC2 t2 instances). A tenant modeling these variations as random phenomena (as some recent work suggests) might make sub-optimal procurement and operation decisions. We present modeling techniques for a tenant to infer the properties of these regulation mechanisms via simple offline measurements. We also present two case studies of how certain memcached workloads might benefit from our modeling when operating on EC2 by: (i) augmenting cheap but low availability in-memory storage offered by spot instances with backup of popular content on burstable instances, and (ii) temporal multiplexing of multiple burstable instances to achieve the CPU or network bandwidth (and thereby throughput) equivalent of a more expensive regular EC2 instance.

References

  1. B. Adler. Amazon t2 use cases. http://www.rightscale.com/blog/cloud-cost-analysis/will-aws-t2-replace-30-percent-instances-not-so-fast.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Amazon EC2 EBS Volume. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/EBSVolumeTypes.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Amazon Elastic Block Store (EBS). https://aws.amazon.com/ebs/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Amazon instance types. https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Amazon spot instances. https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/spot/, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Amazon EC2 FAQs: What is an EC2 Compute Unit and why did you introduce it? https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/faqs/#hardware-information.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Amazon cloudwatch - cloud and network monitoring services. https://aws.amazon.com/cloudwatch/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. K. Barker and P. Shenoy. Empirical evaluation of latency-sensitive application performance in the cloud. In Proc. ACM Multimedia, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. N. Budhiraja, K. Marzullo, F. B. Schneider, and S. Toueg. The primary-backup approach. In Distributed Systems (2nd Ed.), pages 199--216. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Amazon burstable instances. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/t2-instances.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. E. D. Carreno, M. Diener, E. Cruz, and P. Navaux. Automatic communication optimization of parallel applications in public clouds. In Proc. IEEE/ACM CCGRID, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. CloudLook. http://www.cloudlook.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Delimitrou and C. Kozyrakis. Hcloud: Resource-efficient provisioning in shared cloud systems. In Proc. ACM ASPLOS, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. EC2 variability: The numbers revealed. http://tech.mangot.com/roller/dave/entry/ec2_variability_the_numbers_revealed.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Y. El-Khamra, H. Kim, S. Jha, and M. Parashar. Exploring the performance fluctuations of HPC workloads on clouds. In Proc. IEEE CloudCom, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. Farley, A. Juels, V. Varadarajan, T. Ristenpart, K. D. Bowers, and M. M. Swift. More for your money: exploiting performance heterogeneity in public clouds. In Proc. ACM SOCC, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Gandhi and J. Chan. Analyzing the Network for AWS Distributed Cloud Computing. Proc. ACM SIGMETRICS PER, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. GCE Disk Performance. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/disks/performance.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Hajjat, R. Liu, Y. Chang, T. E. Ng, and S. Rao. Application-specific configuration selection in the cloud: impact of provider policy and potential of systematic testing. In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. J. Heinanen, T. Finland, and R. Guerin. A two rate three color marker. RFC 2698 available at www.ietf.org, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Iosup, N. Yigitbasi, and D. Epema. On the performance variability of production cloud services. In Proc. of IEEE/ACM CCGrid, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. iPerf. https://iperf.fr/iperf-download.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. A. Kopytov. Sysbench manual. MySQL AB, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. P. Leitner and J. Cito. Patterns in the Chaos - A Study of Performance Variation and Predictability in Public IaaS Clouds. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT), 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. P. Leitner and J. Scheuner. Bursting with Possibilities--An Empirical Study of Credit-Based Bursting Cloud Instance Types. In Proc. IEEE/ACM UCC, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A. Li, X. Yang, S. Kandula, and M. Zhang. CloudCmp: comparing public cloud providers. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM IMC, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. lookbusy - a synthetic load generator. https://www.devin.com/lookbusy/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. GCE Machine Types. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/machine-types.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Memcached. http://memcached.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. A. Nhem. Cloudability. https://blog.cloudability.com/how-cost-efficient-is-the-new-burstable-aws-t2-large/, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Ostermann, A. Iosup, N. Yigitbasi, R. Prodan, T. Fahringer, and D. Epema. A performance analysis of EC2 cloud computing services for scientific computing. Cloud computing, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Z. Ou, H. Zhuang, J. K. Nurminen, A. Yl\"a-J\"a\"aski, and P. Hui. Exploiting hardware heterogeneity within the same instance type of Amazon EC2. In Proc. USENIX HotCloud, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. J. Read. Cloudharmony. http://blog.cloudharmony.com/2010/05/what-is-ecu-cpu-benchmarking-in-cloud.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M. S. Rehman and M. F. Sakr. Initial findings for provisioning variation in cloud computing. In Proc. IEEE CloudCom, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. C. Reiss, A. Tumanov, G. R. Ganger, R. H. Katz, and M. A. Kozuch. Heterogeneity and dynamicity of clouds at scale: Google trace analysis. In Proc. ACM SOCC, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. J. Schad, J. Dittrich, and J. Quiané-Ruiz. Runtime measurements in the cloud: observing, analyzing, and reducing variance. Proc. VLDB Endowment, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. GCE Micro History. https://en.scio.pw/Google_Compute_Engine.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. GCE Preemptible Instances. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/preemptible.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. GCE Shared-Core Instances. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/machine-types#sharedcore.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. A. Singh, J. Ong, A. Agarwal, G. Anderson, A. Armistead, R. Bannon, S. Boving, G. Desai, B. Felderman, P. Germano, et al. Jupiter rising: A decade of Clos topologies and centralized control in Google's datacenter network. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. STREAM, 2016. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. EC2 t2 Instances History. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2014/07/01/introducing-t2-the-new-low-cost-general-purpose/instance-type-for-amazon-ec2/, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Linux traffic control: Token bucket filter. http://lartc.org/manpages/tc-tbf.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. P. B. Teregowda and C. L. Giles. Scaling seersuite in the cloud. In Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. on Cloud Engr, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. B. Urgaonkar, P. J. Shenoy, and T. Roscoe. Resource overbooking and application profiling in shared hosting platforms. In Proc. USENIX OSDI, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. C. Wang, Q. Liang, and B. Urgaonkar. An empirical analysis of amazon ec2 spot instance features affecting cost-effective resource procurement. In Proc. ACM/SPEC ICPE, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. C. Wang, B. Urgaonkar, A. Gupta, L. Chen, R. Birke, and G. Kesidis. Effective capacity modulation as an explicit control knob for public cloud profitability. In Proc. IEEE ICAC, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. G. Wang and T. E. Ng. The impact of virtualization on network performance of amazon EC2 data center. In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. J. Wen, L. Lu, G. Casale, and E. Smirni. Less can be more: Micro-managing VMs in Amazon EC2. In Proc. IEEE CLOUD, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Z. Xu, C. Stewart, N. Deng, and X. Wang. Blending on-demand and spot instances to lower costs for in-memory storage. In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Yahoo Cloud Serving Benchmark (YCSB. https://research.yahoo.com/news/yahoo-cloud-serving-benchmark.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. X. Zhang, E. Tune, R. Hagmann, R. Jnagal, V. Gokhale, and J. Wilkes. CP$\mboxI^2$: CPU performance isolation for shared compute clusters. In Proc. Eurosys, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Z. Zhang, L. Cherkasova, and B. T. Loo. Exploiting cloud heterogeneity for optimized cost/performance mapreduce processing. In Proc. International Workshop on Cloud Data and Platforms, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Z. Zhang, L. Cherkasova, and B. T. Loo. Optimizing cost and performance trade-offs for mapreduce job processing in the cloud. In Proc. IEEE NOMS, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Using Burstable Instances in the Public Cloud: Why, When and How?

    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

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems
      Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems  Volume 1, Issue 1
      June 2017
      712 pages
      EISSN:2476-1249
      DOI:10.1145/3107080
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2017 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: 13 June 2017
      Published in pomacs Volume 1, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader