Web Server Request Scheduling Mingwei Gong Department of Computer Science University of Calgary...

Web Server Request Scheduling

Mingwei GongDepartment of Computer Science

University of CalgaryNovember 16, 2004

Outline Introduction and Background

Quantifying the Properties of SRPT Policy

Evaluating the Sensitivity to the Arrival Process and Job Size Distribution

Evaluating Hybrid SRPT

Introduction User-perceived Web response time is

composed of several components: Transmission delay, propagation delay in

network Delays caused by TCP protocol effects (e.g.,

handshaking, slow start, packet loss, retxmits)

Queueing delays at the Web server itself, which may be servicing 100’s or 1000’s of concurrent requests

Queueing delays at busy routers Our focus in this work: Web request

scheduling

Scheduling Policies FCFS: First Come First Serve PS: Processor Sharing SRPT: Shortest Remaining Processing Time LAS: Least Attained Service FSP: Fair Sojourn Protocol

FCFS FCFS: First Come First Serve

typical policy for single shared resource (“unfair”)

e.g., drive-thru restaurant e.g., routers

FSFSjobs

PS PS: Processor Sharing

time-sharing a resource amongst M jobs each job gets 1/M of the resources (equal,

“fair”) e.g., CPU; VM; multi-tasking; Apache Web

server

PS

jobs

1/M

SRPT SRPT: Shortest Remaining Processing Time

pre-emptive version of Shortest Job First (SJF) give resources to job that will complete

quickest e.g., ??? (express lanes in grocery store)

(almost)SRPTjobs

SRPTjobs

SRPT (cont’d) SRPT is well known to be optimal in terms

of mean response time among all work-conserving scheduling policies.

But, it is rarely deployed in the applications, mainly due to two concerns: Unfairness problem, that is, large jobs may be

penalized. Unknown job sizes beforehand

FSP

FSP: Fair Sojourn Protocol order the jobs according to the PS policy give full resources to job that with the earliest

PS completion time

Eric J. Friedman, Shane G. Henderson: “Fairness and efficiency in web

server protocols”. SIGMETRICS 2003: 229-237

LAS

LAS: Least Attained Service scheduling At any time, LAS gives service to a job that has

received the least amount of service. A size based policy that favors short jobs

without knowing their sizes in advance

Rai, I. A., Urvoy-Keller G., and Biersack, E. W., “Analysis of LAS scheduling for job size distributions with high variance. “Proceedings of ACM Sigmetrics 2003, San Diego, June 2003.

Rai, I. A., Urvoy-Keller, G., Vernon, M., and Biersack, E. W., “Performance models for LAS-based scheduling disciplines in a packet switched network”, Proceedings of ACM Sigmetrics 2004

Quantifying the Properties of SRPT Policy

Related Work

Theoretical work: SRPT is provably optimal in terms of mean

response time (“classical” results)

Practical work: CMU: prototype implementation in Apache

Web server. The results are consistent with theoretical work.

Related Work (Cont’d) Harchol-Balter et al. show theoretical results:

For the largest jobs, the slowdown asymptotically converges to the same value for any preemptive work-conserving scheduling policies (i.e., for these jobs, SRPT, or even LRPT, is no worse than PS)

For sufficiently large jobs, the slowdown under SRPT is only marginally worse than under PS, by at most a factor of 1 + ε, for small ε > 0.

[M.Harchol-Balter, K.Sigman, and A.Wierman 2002], “Asymptotic Convergence of Scheduling Policies w.r.t. Slowdown”, Proceedings of IFIP Performance 2002, Rome, Italy, September 2002

Job Size

Slo

wdo

wn

PS

SRPT

0 8

A Pictorial View“crossover region” (mystery hump)

“asymptoticconvergence”

x y1

8

11-p

Research Questions Do these properties hold in practice for

empirical Web server workloads? (e.g., general arrival processes, service time distributions)

What does “sufficiently large” mean? Is the crossover effect observable? If so, for what range of job sizes? Is PS (the “gold standard”) really “fair”?

Overview of Research Methodology Trace-driven simulation of simple Web

server Empirical Web server workload trace

(WorldCup’98) for main experiments

Probe-based sampling methodology Estimate job response time distributions for

different job size, load level, scheduling policy

Performance Metrics Number of jobs in the system

Slowdown: The slowdown of a job is its observed response

time divided by the ideal response time if it were the only job in the system

Ranges between 1 and Lower is better

Empirical Web Server Workload1998 WorldCup: Internet Traffic Archive:

Item Value

Trace Duration 861 sec

Total Requests 1,000,000

Unique Documents 5,549

Total Transferred Bytes 3.3 GB

Smallest Transfer Size (bytes) 4

Largest Transfer Size (bytes) 2,891,887

Median Transfer Size (bytes) 889

Mean Transfer Size (bytes) 3,498

Standard Deviation (bytes) 18,815

Probe-Based Sampling Algorithm

PS

PS

PS

Slowdown (1 sample)

Repeat

N

times

Example Results for 3 KB Probe Job

Load 50% Load 80% Load 95%

Load 50% Load 80% Load 95%

Siz

e 10

0KExample Results for 100 KB Probe Job

Load 50% Load 80% Load 95%

Example Results for 10 MB Probe Job

Statistical Summary of Results

Two Aspects of Unfairness Endogenous unfairness: (SRPT)

Caused by an intrinsic property of a job, such as its size. This aspect of unfairness is invariant

Exogenous unfairness: (PS) Caused by external conditions, such as the

number of other jobs in the system, their sizes, and their arrival times.

Observations for PS

Exogenous unfairnessdominant

PS is “fair” Sort of!

Observations for SRPTEndogenous unfairnessdominant

Asymptotic Convergence? Yes!

3M

3.5M

4M

Linear Scale Log Scale

Illustrating the crossover effect (load=95%)

Crossover Effect? Yes!

Summary and Conclusions Trace-driven simulation of Web server

scheduling strategies, using a probe-based sampling methodology (probe jobs) to estimate response time (slowdown) distributions

Confirms asymptotic convergence of the slowdown metric for the largest jobs

Confirms the existence of the “cross-over effect” for some job sizes under SRPT

Provides new insights into SRPT and PS Two types of unfairness: endogenous vs. exogenous PS is not really a “gold standard” for fairness!

Evaluating the Sensitivity to Arrival Process and Job Size

Distribution

Research Questions What is the impact from different arrival

process and job size distribution? How the crossover region will be affected?

Does it depend on the arrival process and the service time distribution? If so, how?

Effect of Request Arrival Process Using fixed size transfers

3 KB in this experiment Changing the Hurst parameter

from 0.50 to 0.90

Marginal Distr. Of Number of Jobs in the System (p=0.8)

Hurst 0.5 Hurst 0.7 Hurst 0.9

Marginal Distr. Of Number of Jobs in the System (p=0.95)

Hurst 0.5 Hurst 0.7 Hurst 0.9

Mean Performance under Load 0.80

Mean Performance under Load 0.95

Sensitivity to Arrival Process A bursty arrival process (e.g., self-similar

traffic, with Hurst parameter H > 0.5) makes things worse for both PS and SRPT policies

A bursty arrival process has greater impact on the performance of PS than on SRPT

Effect of Heavy-tailed Job Size Distribution

Using Deterministic Arrival Process

Adjusting the heavy-tailed parameter From 1.0 to 2.0

Sensitivity to Job Size Distribution SRPT loves heavy-tailed distributions:

the heavier the tail the better!

For all Pareto parameter values and all system loads considered, SRPT provides better performance than PS with respect to mean slowdown and standard deviation of slowdown

The Crossover Effect Revisited The crossover region tends to get smaller

as the burstiness of the arrival process increases PS performs much worse under bursty arrival

process SRPT can still manage a relatively good

performance

Evaluating Hybrid SRPT

Research Questions

Efficiency and Fairness, how to achieve both?

Can we do better? If so, how?

PS, FSP and SRPT

K-SRPT Multi-threaded version of SRPT, that allows up to

K jobs (the K smallest RPT ones) to be in service concurrently (like PS), though with the same fixed aggregate service rate. Additional jobs (if any) in the system wait in the queue. And of course it is preemptive, like SRPT. share = Min (J, K) If J > K, then first K jobs each receives 1/share Else, those J jobs, each receives 1/share

Simulation Results for K-SRPT

Slowdown Profile Plot for K-SRPT Jobs in System for K-SRPT

T-SRPT Determining whether the system is "busy"

or not depends on a threshold T for the number of jobs (J) in the system. share = Min (J, K) If J > T, then use SRPT Else, use PS.

Simulation Results for T-SRPT

Slowdown Profile Plot for T-SRPT Jobs in System for T-SRPT

DT-SRPT Double-Threshold SRPT uses two

threshold: A high threshold T_high at which the policy

switches from PS to SRPT. A low threshold T_low at which it switches

back from SRPT to PS.

Simulation Results for DT-SRPT

Slowdown Profile Plot for DT-SRPT Jobs in System for DT-SRPT

Summary of Simulation Results for Hybrid SRPT Scheduling Policies

Scheduling Policy

Mean Slowdown

SRPT State

State Changes

K-SRPT-2K-SRPT-10

1.3384.774

N/AN/A

N/AN/A

T-SRPT-2T-SRPT-10

1.3893.295

74.5%38.5%

310,236480,084

DT-SRPT-2-10DT-SRPT-10-30

2.5059.572

60.6%22.8%

6,5542,542

Summary and Conclusions

Proposes two novel Web server scheduling policies, each of which is a parameterizable variant of SRPT

Hybrid SRPT provides similar performance as FSP with simpler implementation.

DT-SRPT policy looks optimizing.

For Details.. Mingwei Gong, Carey Williamson,

“Quantifying the Properties of SRPT Scheduling”. MASCOTS 2003, pp:126-135

Mingwei Gong, “Quantifying Unfairness in Web Server Scheduling” . M.Sc. Thesis, University of Calgary, July 2003.

Mingwei Gong, Carey Williamson, “Simulation Evaluation of Hybrid SRPT Scheduling Policy”. MASCOTS 2004, pp: 355-363

Thank you for your attention!!