skip to main content
research-article

Ginseng: market-driven memory allocation

Published:01 March 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Physical memory is the scarcest resource in today's cloud computing platforms. Cloud providers would like to maximize their clients' satisfaction by renting precious physical memory to those clients who value it the most. But real-world cloud clients are selfish: they will only tell their providers the truth about how much they value memory when it is in their own best interest to do so. How can real-world cloud providers allocate memory efficiently to those (selfish) clients who value it the most?

We present Ginseng, the first market-driven cloud system that allocates memory efficiently to selfish cloud clients. Ginseng incentivizes selfish clients to bid their true value for the memory they need when they need it. Ginseng continuously collects client bids, finds an efficient memory allocation, and re-allocates physical memory to the clients that value it the most. Ginseng achieves a 6.2×--15.8x improvement (83%--100% of the optimum) in aggregate client satisfaction when compared with state-of-the-art approaches for cloud memory allocation.

References

  1. O. Agmon Ben-Yehuda, M. Ben-Yehuda, A. Schuster, and D. Tsafrir. Deconstructing Amazon EC2 spot instance pricing. In IEEE Conf. on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. O. Agmon Ben-Yehuda, M. Ben-Yehuda, A. Schuster, and D. Tsafrir. The resource-as-a-service (raas) cloud. In USENIX Conf. on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (HotCloud), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Armbrust, A. Fox, R. Griffith, A. D. Joseph, R. Katz, A. Konwinski, G. Lee, D. Patterson, A. Rabkin, I. Stoica, and M. Zaharia. A view of cloud computing. Communications of the ACM, 53 (4): 50--58, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Bae, E. Beigman, R. Berry, M. L. Honig, and R. Vohra. An efficient auction for non concave valuations. In Int'l Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. Cary, A. Das, B. Edelman, I. Giotis, K. Heimerl, A. R. Karlin, C. Mathieu, and M. Schwarz. Greedy bidding strategies for keyword auctions. In ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce (EC), pages 262--271, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. S. Chase, D. C. Anderson, P. N. Thakar, A. M. Vahdat, and R. P. Doyle. Managing energy and server resources in hosting centers. In ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. E. H. Clarke. Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11 (1): 17--33, Sep 1971.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. G. D'Alesandre. Updated app engine pricing faq! Web site, June 2011. http://tinyurl.com/D-Alesandre.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Dobzinski and N. Nisan. Mechanisms for multi-unit auctions. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37: 85--98, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. K. E. Drexler and M. S. Miller. Incentive engineering for computational resource management. In The Ecology of Computation, pages 231--266. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Z. Gong, X. Gu, and J. Wilkes. Press: Predictive elastic resource scaling for cloud systems. In Int'l Conf. on Network and Service Management (CNSM), pages 9--16, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Gordon, M. Hines, D. Da Silva, M. Ben-Yehuda, M. Silva, and G. Lizarraga. Ginkgo: Automated, application-driven memory overcommitment for cloud computing. In Runtime Environments/Systems, Layering, & Virtualized Environments Workshop (ASPLOS RESOLVE), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. T. Groves. Incentives in teams. Econometrica, 41 (4): 617--631, Jul 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. C. Grzegorczyk, S. Soman, C. Krintz, and R. Wolski. Isla vista heap sizing: Using feedback to avoid paging. In Int'l Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO), pages 325--340, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Heo, X. Zhu, P. Padala, and Z. Wang. Memory overbooking and dynamic control of xen virtual machines in consolidated environments. In IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Management (IM), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Hertz, S. Kane, E. Keudel, T. Bai, C. Ding, X. Gu, and J. E. Bard. Waste not, want not: resource-based garbage collection in a shared environment. In Int'l Symposium on Memory Management (ISMM), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Hines, A. Gordon, M. Silva, D. D. Silva, K. D. Ryu, and M. Ben-Yehuda. Applications know best: Performance-driven memory overcommit with ginkgo. In IEEE Conf. on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. T. Jones, A. C. Arpaci-Dusseau, and R. H. Arpaci-Dusseau. Geiger: monitoring the buffer cache in a virtual machine environment. In ACM Architectural Support for Programming Languages & Operating Systems (ASPLOS), 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. F. Kelly. Charging and rate control for elastic traffic. European Trans. on Telecommunications, 8: 33--37, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. A. Kivity, Y. Kamay, D. Laor, U. Lublin, and A. Liguori. KVM: the Linux virtual machine monitor. In Ottawa Linux Symposium (OLS), pages 225--230, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. A. Lazar and N. Semret. Design and analysis of the progressive second price auction for network bandwidth sharing. Telecommunication Systems--Special issue on Network Economics, 20: 255--263, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. M. Levy and S. Solomon. New evidence for the power-law distribution of wealth. Physica A, 242: 90--94, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. A. G. Litke. Memory overcommitment manager. website, 2011. https://github.com/aglitke/mom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. B. Lucier, R. Paes Leme, and E. Tardos. On revenue in the generalized second price auction. In Int'l World Wide Web Conf. (WWW), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. Magenheimer. Memory overcommit... without the commitment. In Xen Summit. USENIX association, June 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. P. Maillé and B. Tuffin. Multi-bid auctions for bandwidth allocation in communication networks. In IEEE INFOCOM, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. R. Nathuji, A. Kansal, and A. Ghaffarkhah. Q-clouds: Managing performance interference effects for qos-aware clouds. In ACM SIGOPS European Conf. on Computer Systems (EuroSys), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Z. Ou, H. Zhuang, J. K. Nurminen, A. Ylä-Jääski, and P. Hui. Exploiting hardware heterogeneity within the same instance type of amazon EC2. In USENIX Conf. on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (HotCloud), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. T.-I. Salomie, G. Alonso, T. Roscoe, and K. Elphinstone. Application level ballooning for efficient server consolidation. In ACM SIGOPS European Conf. on Computer Systems (EuroSys), pages 337--350, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Z. Shen, S. Subbiah, X. Gu, and J. Wilkes. Cloudscale: elastic resource scaling for multi-tenant cloud systems. In ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. S. Soman, C. Krintz, and D. F. Bacon. Dynamic selection of application-specific garbage collectors. In Int'l Symposium on Memory Management (ISMM), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. W. Souma. Universal structure of the personal income distribution. Fractals, 9 (04): 463--470, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. B. Urgaonkar, P. Shenoy, and T. Roscoe. Resource overbooking and application profiling in a shared internet hosting platform. ACM Trans. Internet Technol., 9 (1), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. W. Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J. of Finance, 16 (1), 1961.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. C. Waldspurger, T. Hogg, B. A. Huberman, J. O. Kephart, and W. S. Stornetta. Spawn: a distributed computational economy. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, 18 (2): 103--117, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. C. A. Waldspurger. Lottery and Stride Scheduling: Flexible Proportional-Share Resource Management. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. C. A. Waldspurger. Memory resource management in Vmware ESX server. In USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design & Implementation (OSDI), 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. T. Yang, E. D. Berger, S. F. Kaplan, and J. E. B. Moss. CRAMM: virtual memory support for garbage-collected applications. In USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design & Implementation (OSDI), pages 103--116, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. W. Zhao and Z. Wang. Dynamic memory balancing for virtual machines. In ACM/USENIX Int'l Conf. on Virtual Execution Environments (VEE), pages 21--30, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. W. Zhao, X. Jin, Z. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Luo, and X. Li. Low cost working set size tracking. In USENIX Annual Technical Conf. (ATC), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. P. Zhou, V. Pandey, J. Sundaresan, A. Raghuraman, Y. Zhou, and S. Kumar. Dynamic tracking of page miss ratio curve for memory management. In ACM Architectural Support for Programming Languages & Operating Systems (ASPLOS), 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Ginseng: market-driven memory allocation

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 SIGPLAN Notices
    ACM SIGPLAN Notices  Volume 49, Issue 7
    VEE '14
    July 2014
    222 pages
    ISSN:0362-1340
    EISSN:1558-1160
    DOI:10.1145/2674025
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    • cover image ACM Conferences
      VEE '14: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS international conference on Virtual execution environments
      March 2014
      236 pages
      ISBN:9781450327640
      DOI:10.1145/2576195

    Copyright © 2014 ACM

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 1 March 2014

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

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!