Anshul Gandhi (Carnegie Mellon University)
Download
1 / 29

Power-efficient server provisioning in server farms - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 140 Views
  • Uploaded on

Anshul Gandhi (Carnegie Mellon University) Varun Gupta (CMU), Mor Harchol-Balter (CMU) Michael Kozuch (Intel, Pittsburgh). Power-efficient server provisioning in server farms. Motivation. Server farms are important for today’s IT infrastructure (Amazon, Google, IBM, HP, …)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Power-efficient server provisioning in server farms' - yama


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Anshul Gandhi (Carnegie Mellon University)

Varun Gupta (CMU), Mor Harchol-Balter (CMU)

Michael Kozuch (Intel, Pittsburgh)

Power-efficient server provisioning in server farms


Motivation
Motivation

  • Server farms are important for today’s IT infrastructure (Amazon, Google, IBM, HP, …)

  • However, server farms cost a lot of money to power ($4 billion in 2006)

Server Farm

Requests


High level problem statement
High-level problem statement

  • How many servers, given request rate ?

    • Don’t want to waste power

Server Farm

Requests


Outline
Outline

  • Server farm model

  • Provisioning for fixed arrival rate

  • Provisioning for unpredictable, time-varying arrival rate

  • Future work


Server farms
Server farms

IDLE servers consume a lot of power

~ 60 % of BUSY


Server farms1
Server farms

Turn IDLE servers OFF to save power

HOWEVER


Setup cost
Setup cost

To turn on an OFF server ..

  • BUSY

  • OFF

  • SETUP

  • Time delay (setup time)

  • 1 min – 5 mins

  • and

  • Power penalty

  • peak power during setup time


Setup cost1
Setup cost

To turn on an OFF server ..

  • BUSY

  • OFF

  • SETUP

Should we ever turn servers OFF ?


Server model
Server model

  • Server states:

    BUSY PBUSY 240 W

    IDLE PIDLE 150 W

    OFF POFF 0 W

    SETUP PSETUP 240 W

  • Setup times:

    TOFF→ON 200 s

    TON→OFF 0 s

ON

  • Intel Xeon E5320

  • 2 X 1.86 GHz quad-core

  • 4GB memory


Server farm model
Server farm model

  • Poisson arrival process: λ(t) requests/sec

  • Exponentially distributed job sizes: E[S] secs

  • Load: ρ(t) = λ(t) ∙ E[S]

    Minimum # servers to handle incoming load

Server Farm

Requests

FCFS


Metric
Metric

  • Interested in response time and power conumption

  • Perf/W = 1/(Mean RT X Mean Power)

  • Maximize Perf/W


Outline1
Outline

  • Server farm model

  • Provisioning for fixed arrival rate

  • Provisioning for unpredictable, time-varying arrival rate

  • Future work


Provisioning for fixed arrival rate
Provisioning for fixed arrival rate

  • Existing solutions: prediction based, reactive controllers.

  • Is there a simple, yet, near-optimal solution ?

Poisson arrivals

Server Farm

Max. Perf/W


Neveroff
NEVEROFF

  • Keep n servers always ON (M/M/n)

    • Servers are BUSY or IDLE


Perf w for neveroff
Perf/W for NEVEROFF


Instantoff
INSTANTOFF

  • Turn servers OFF when IDLE

    • Servers are BUSY, OFF or in SETUP

Auto-scales if n is high


Perf w for instantoff
Perf/W for INSTANTOFF


Neveroff vs instantoff
NEVEROFF vs. INSTANTOFF

TON→OFF < γ E[S]/√ρ


Near optimality
Near-optimality

  • Best of {NEVEROFF, INSTANTOFF} is optimal for single-server

  • Multi-server ?

For ρ > 10, we are within 20% of OPT


Outline2
Outline

  • Server farm model

  • Provisioning for fixed arrival rate

  • Provisioning for unpredictable, time-varying arrival rate

  • Future work


Unpredictable time varying demand
Unpredictable, time-varying demand

  • Data center demand

    has daily variations

  • INSTANTOFF can auto-scale


Unpredictable time varying demand1
Unpredictable, time-varying demand

  • NEVEROFF requires continual updates based on predicted load

    • Predictions are not always accurate

  • Can we find a simple traffic-oblivious policy?

    • Auto-scaling in nature


Delayedoff
DELAYEDOFF

  • Like INSTANTOFF, except we wait for twait seconds before turning IDLE servers OFF

  • Routing ?

MRB routing is crucial !


T wait
twait

  • Rule of thumb:twait ∙ PIDLE = TOFF→ON ∙ PON


Near optimality1
Near-optimality

Worse at higher frequencies


Auto scaling capabilities
Auto-scaling capabilities

  • 1998 World Cup Soccer trace (ITA)


Outline3
Outline

  • Server farm model

  • Provisioning for fixed arrival rate

  • Provisioning for unpredictable, time-varying arrival rate

  • Future work


Future work
Future work

  • Experimental evaluation of proposed schemes

    • Preliminary experiments on 15-server testbed using CPU-bound workload and sinusoidal arrival pattern

    • Experimental results agree with analysis

    • Web workloads:

      • What does the experimental setup look like ?

  • Try out various arrival traces and workloads


Thank you
Thank You!

  • Anshul Gandhi, Varun Gupta, Mor Harchol-Balter, Michael Kozuch

    Optimality analysis of energy-performance trade-off for server farm management, PERFORMANCE 2010

  • Anshul Gandhi, Mor Harchol-Balter, Ivo Adan

    Server farms with setup costs, PERFORMANCE 2010

  • Anshul Gandhi, Varun Gupta, Mor Harchol-Balter, Michael Kozuch

    Energy-efficient dynamic capacity provisioning in server farms,

    CMU technical report CMU-CS-10-108


ad