skip to main content
research-article

YouChoose: Choosing your Storage Device as a Performance Interface to Consolidated I/O Service

Published:01 October 2011Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Currently the QoS requirements for storage systems are usually presented in the form of service-level agreement (SLA) to bound I/O measures such as latency and throughput of I/O requests. However, SLA is not an effective performance interface for users to specify their required I/O service quality for two major reasons. First, for users it is difficult to determine appropriate latency and throughput bounds to ensure their required application performance without resource over-provisioning. Second, for storage system administrators it is a challenge to estimate a user’s real resource demand because the specified SLA measures are not consistently correlated with the user’s resource demand. This makes resource provisioning and scheduling less informative and can greatly reduce system efficiency.

We propose the concept of reference storage system (RSS), which can be a storage system chosen by users and whose performance can be measured offline and mimicked online, as a performance interface between applications and storage servers. By designating an RSS to represent I/O performance requirement, a user can expect the performance received from a shared storage server servicing his I/O workload is not worse than the performance received from the RSS servicing the same workload. The storage system is responsible for implementing the RSS interface. The key enabling techniques are a machine learning model that derives request-specific performance requirements and an RSS-centric scheduling that efficiently allocates resource among requests from different users. The proposed scheme, named as YouChoose, supports the user-chosen performance interface through efficiently implementing and migrating virtual storage devices in a host storage system. Our evaluation based on trace-driven simulations shows that YouChoose can precisely implement the RSS performance interface, achieve a strong performance assurance and isolation, and improve the efficiency of a consolidated storage system consisting of different types of storage devices.

References

  1. Anderson, E. 2001. Simple table-based modeling of storage devices. Tech. rep. HPL-SSP-2001-04. HP Laboratories.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, E., Hobbs, M., Keeton, K., Spence, S., Uysal, M., and Veitch, A. 2002. Hippodrome:running circles around storage administration. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies. USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bruno, J., Brustoloni, J., Gabber, E., Ozden, B., and Silberschatz, A. 1999. Disk scheduling with quality of service guarantees. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems. IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Chambliss, D., Alvarez, G., Pandey, P., Jadav, D., Xu, J., Menon, R., and Lee, T. 2003. Performance virtualization for large-scale storage systems. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Cruz, R. 1995. Quality of service guarantees in virtual circuit switched networks. IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 13, 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. DiskSim. 2009. The disksim simulation environment (version 3.0). http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/DiskSim/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Flash Simulator. 2009. A simulator for various FTL schemes, Penn State Computer Systems Lab. http://csl.cse.psu.edu/?q=node/322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibson, G. and Meter, R. 2000. Network attached atorage architecture. Comm. ACM 43, 11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gulati, A., Merchant, A., and Varman, P. 2007. Pclock: An arrival curve based approach for qos guarantees in shared systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gulati, A., Ahmad, I., and Waldspurger, C. A. 2009. Parda: Proportional allocation of resources for distributed storage access. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies. USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Gulati, A., Merchant, A., and Varman, P. 2010. mclock: Handling throughput variability for hypervisor IO scheduling. In Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation. USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gupta, A., Kim, Y., and Urgaonkar, B. 2009. DFTL: A flash translation layer employing demand-based selective caching of page-level address mappings. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hewlett-Packard Company. 2001. Openmail Technical Reference Guide. HP Laboratories.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang, L., Peng, G., and Chiueh, T. 2004. Multi-dimensional storage virtualization. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jin, W., Chase, J., and Kaur, J. 2007. Interposed proportional sharing for a storage service utility. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kelly, T., Cohen, I., Goldszmidt, M., and Keeton, K. 2004. Inducing models of black-box storage arrays. Tech. rep. HPL-SSP-2004-108. HP Laboratories.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Lu, C., Alvarez, G., and Wilkes, J. 2002. Aqueduct: Online data migration with performance guarantees. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies. USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Lumb, C., Merchant, A., and Alvarezg, G. 2003. Facade: Virtual storage devices with performance guaratees. In Proceeding of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mesnier, M., Wachs, M., Sambasivan, R., Zheng, A., and Ganger, G. 2007. Modeling the relative fitness of storage. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Peng, G. and Chiueh, T. 2008. Availability and fairness support for storage qos guarantee. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Conference. IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Popovici, F., Arpaci-Dusseau, A., and Arpaci-Dusseau, R. 2003. Robust, portable i/o scheduling with the disk mimic. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. USENIX.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Recker, S., Geisselhardt, W., and Wolff, I. 2003. Service curve based routing subject to deterministic qos constraints. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Telecommunications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ruemmler, C. and Wilkes, J. 1994. An introduction to disk drive modeling. Comput. 27, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Sariowan, H., Cruz, R., and Polyzos, G. 1995. Scheduling for quality of service guarantees via service curves. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Schlosser, S., Schindler, J., Papadomanolakis, S., Shao, M., Ailamaki, A., Faloutsos, C., and Ganger, G. 2005. On multidimensional data and modern disks. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies. USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Smirni, E. and Reed, D. 1997. Workload characterization of input/output intensive parallel applications. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Performance Evaluation: Modeling and Techniques and Tools. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Stoica, I., Zhang, H., and Ng, T. 1997. A hierarchical fair service curve algorithm for link-sharing, real-time and priority services. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Storage Area Network. 2009. Storage area network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage_area_network.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Tran, N. and Reed, D. 2001. Arima time series modeling and forecasting for adaptive i/o prefetching. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Supercomputing. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. UMASS Trace Repository. 2009. Oltp application and search engine I/O. Umass Trace Repository. http://traces.cs.umass.edu/index.php/Storage/Storage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Uttamchandani, S., Yin, L., Alvarez, G., Palmer, J., and Agha, G. 2005. Chamelon: A self-evolving, fully-adaptive resource arbitrator for storage systems. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Wachs, M., Abd-El-Malek, M., Thereska, E., and Ganger, G. 2007. Argon: Performance insulation for shared storage servers. In Proceedings of the USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies. USENIX. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Wang, M., Au, K., Ailamaki, A., Brockwell, A., Faloutsos, C., and Ganger, G. 2004. Storage device performance prediction with cart models. In Proceedings of the 12th MASCOTS Conference. IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Wilkes, J., Golding, R., Staelin, C., and Sullivan, T. 1996. The hp autoraid hierarchical storage system. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 14, 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Worthington, B., Ganger, G., and Patt, Y. 1994. Scheduling algorithm for modern disk drives. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Zhang, J., Sivasubramaniam, A., Wang, Q., Riska, A., and Riedel, E. 2006. Storage performance virtualization via throughput and latency control. ACM Trans. Stor. 2, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. YouChoose: Choosing your Storage Device as a Performance Interface to Consolidated I/O Service

      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 ACM Transactions on Storage
        ACM Transactions on Storage  Volume 7, Issue 3
        October 2011
        120 pages
        ISSN:1553-3077
        EISSN:1553-3093
        DOI:10.1145/2027066
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2011 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 October 2011
        • Accepted: 1 September 2011
        • Received: 1 July 2011
        Published in tos Volume 7, Issue 3

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!