1 / 31

My Point of View about Bandwidth Sharing

My Point of View about Bandwidth Sharing. Bin Wang. Outline. Oktopus (Sigcomm 2011) TIVC (Sigcomm 2012) Seawall (NSDI 2011) Faircloud (Sigcomm 2012) Hadrian (NSDI 2013). Min-Guarantee. Each VM should be guaranteed a minimum bandwidth. (Oktopus et al.). Calculate VM Bandwidth.

shawn
Download Presentation

My Point of View about Bandwidth Sharing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. My Point of View about Bandwidth Sharing Bin Wang

  2. Outline • Oktopus (Sigcomm 2011) • TIVC (Sigcomm 2012) • Seawall (NSDI 2011) • Faircloud (Sigcomm 2012) • Hadrian (NSDI 2013)

  3. Min-Guarantee • Each VM should be guaranteeda minimum bandwidth. (Oktopus et al.) Calculate VM Bandwidth VM Placement Bulid Virtual Data Center

  4. Oktopus [Hitesh Ballani et al. Sigcomm 2011] • Virtual Cluster • <N, B> • Virtual Oversubscribed Cluster • <N,B, S,O>

  5. TIVC [Di Xie et al. Sigcomm 2012] • Temporally-interleaved Virtual Cluster • Example: Single Peak <N, T, Bb, P>, where P=(T1, T2, B)

  6. Network Proportionality • Thebandwidth allocated to a tenant should be proportionalto its payment. (Seawall et al.) • Per-flow allocation [B. Briscoe Sigcomm 2007] • unfairness for jot flows • Per-source allocation [Seawall Alan Shieh et al. NSDI 2011] • asymmetric for bisection bandwidth allocation • (similar to per-destination allocation)

  7. High Utilization • Spare networkresources should be allocated to tenants with demand. (FairCloud et al.) • Per-VM allocation [Gatekeeper H. Rodrigues et al. WIOV 2011] • violate min-guarantee & proportionality • Per-SD allocation [FairCloud Lucian Popa et al. Sigcomm 2012] [Hadrian Hitesh Ballani et al. NSDI 2013]

  8. Good Allocation Strategies (1) • Work conservation: As long as there is at least a tenant that has packets to send along link L, L cannot be idle. (FairCloud)

  9. Good Allocation Strategies (2) • Strategy-proofness: Tenants cannot improve their allocations by lying about their demands. (FairCloud)

  10. Good Allocation Strategies (3) • Utilization incentives: Tenants are never incentivized to reduce their actual demands on uncongested paths or to artificially leave links underutilized. (FairCloud)

  11. Good Allocation Strategies (4) • Communication dependencies: A tenant’s communication dependency is a list of other tenants orpeers that the tenant expects to communicate with. (Hadrian) If, i) P: {Q}, ii) Q:{P, R}, iii) R: {*}, R cannot communicate with P.

  12. Good Allocation Strategies (5) • Min-guarantee: Total flows do get their minimum bandwidths. (Hadrian)

  13. Good Allocation Strategies (6) • Symmetry: The reverse allocation of each flow should match its original (forward) allocation. (FairCloud)

  14. None of the state of art includes all the above issues. • None of them is strategy-proofness because all of them are static allocations. Hadrian

  15. FairCloud • PS-L: • PS-P:

  16. Strategy-proofness is requisite because it prevents malicious allocation actions.

  17. My points of view • Link incentives: Useful link will be work conservation as soon as possiable. • Preferential policy: The last allocation statement, if triggered by newly allocations, should not be largely changed in a period. • First-fit: The initial source&destination VMs through the link will acquire preferential policy. • Other factors: Our proposal should not violate min-guarantee et al.

  18. First Fit--Per-SD allocation • Assume each VM has the same min-guarantee as 1. is a set of all VMs belonging to the proximate link l on first-fit period For example,

  19. First Fit--Per-SD allocation • When adding the transfer p'-r5, because it is also the first-fit, it's allocation weight:

  20. The allocation strategy for newly D/S from the latest S/D. is the number of the newly D/S from X at statement i. is the number of the decreased old S/D from X at statement i.

  21. Instance

  22. Instance (2)

  23. Instance (3)

  24. Disscussion • The proposal isstrategy-proofness. •  Deeply increasing allocation does not affect the last allocation most. •  Deeply decreasing allocation will affect the benefit of the actor. •  The strategy encourages the balance of the increasing&decreasing.

  25. First-fit at Tenant Level

  26. First-fit at Tenant Level Case 1

  27. First-fit+Payment-guarantee • The proportionality should represent VMs payment-guarantee. That means VMs with smaller minimal bandwidth should not acquire the profit from VMs with larger one. (Hadrian)

  28. Proposal Comparison

  29. Future Work • Consider the deployment in the tree-based topology/BCube • Simulate on Estinet (compared with FairCloud, per-source, per-flow, Hadrian) • Testbed (3 hops communication & Fat-tree)

  30. Thanks

More Related