Changes between Version 30 and Version 31 of FGBI


Ignore:
Timestamp:
10/06/11 01:47:16 (13 years ago)
Author:
lvpeng
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • FGBI

    v30 v31  
    88[[Image(figure1.jpg)]]
    99
    10     Figure 1. Primary-Backup model and the downtime problem.
     10            Figure 1. Primary-Backup model and the downtime problem.
    1111
    1212Downtime is the primary factor for estimating the high availability of a system, since any long downtime experience for clients may result in loss of client loyalty and thus revenue loss. Under the Primary-Backup model (Figure 1), there are two types of downtime: I) the time from when the primary host crashes until the VM resumes from the last checkpointed state on the backup host and starts to handle client requests (D1 = T3 - T1); II) the time from when the VM pauses on the primary (to save for the checkpoint) until it resumes (D2). From Jiang’s paper we observe that for memory-intensive workloads running on guest VMs (such as the highSys workload), LLM endures much longer type I downtime than Remus. This is because, these workloads update the guest memory at high frequency. On the other side, LLM migrates the guest VM image update (mostly from memory) at low frequency but uses input replay as an auxiliary. In this case, when failure happens, a significant number of memory updates are needed in order to ensure synchronization between the primary and backup hosts. Therefore, it needs significantly more time for the input replay process in order to resume the VM on the backup host and begin handling client requests.
     
    4747[[Image(figure2.jpg)]]
    4848
    49            Figure 2. Type I Downtime comparison under different benchmarks.
     49                Figure 2. Type I Downtime comparison under different benchmarks.
    5050
    5151Figures 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d show the type I downtime com-
     
    7777[[Image(table1.jpg)]]
    7878
    79           Table 1. Type II Downtime comparison.
     79               Table 1. Type II Downtime comparison.
    8080
    8181Table 1 shows the type II downtime comparison among
     
    9797[[Image(figure3.jpg)]]
    9898
    99            Figure 3. Overhead Measurements.
     99Figure 3. Overhead Measurements ((a) Overhead under dierent block size; (b) Comparison of proposed techniques.).
    100100
    101101Figure 3a shows the overhead during VM migration. The figure compares the