IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED … · Consolidation of Virtual Machines in Cloud Data Centers Under Quality of Service Constraints Anton Beloglazov and Rajkumar Buyya,

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS , VOL. 24, NO. 7, JULY 2013 1366

Managing Overloaded Hosts for DynamicConsolidation of Virtual Machines in Cloud Data

Centers Under Quality of Service ConstraintsAnton Beloglazov and Rajkumar Buyya, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—Dynamic consolidation of Virtual Machines (VMs) is an effective way to improve the utilization of resources and energyefficiency in Cloud data centers. Determining when it is best to reallocate VMs from an overloaded host is an aspect of dynamic VMconsolidation that directly influences the resource utilization and Quality of Service (QoS) delivered by the system. The influence onthe QoS is explained by the fact that server overloads cause resource shortages and performance degradation of applications. Currentsolutions to the problem of host overload detection are generally heuristic-based, or rely on statistical analysis of historical data. Thelimitations of these approaches are that they lead to sub-optimal results and do not allow explicit specification of a QoS goal. Wepropose a novel approach that for any known stationary workload and a given state configuration optimally solves the problem of hostoverload detection by maximizing the mean inter-migration time under the specified QoS goal based on a Markov chain model. Weheuristically adapt the algorithm to handle unknown non-stationary workloads using the Multisize Sliding Window workload estimationtechnique. Through simulations with real-world workload traces from more than a thousand PlanetLab VMs, we show that our approachoutperforms the best benchmark algorithm and provides approximately 88% of the performance of the optimal offline algorithm.

Index Terms—Distributed systems, Cloud computing, virtualization, dynamic consolidation, energy efficiency, host overload detection.

F

1 INTRODUCTION

Cloud computing has revolutionized the ICT indus-try by enabling on-demand provisioning of computingresources based on a pay-as-you-go model. An orga-nization can either outsource its computational needsto the Cloud avoiding high up-front investments in aprivate computing infrastructure and consequent main-tenance costs, or implement a private Cloud data centerto improve the resource management and provisioningprocesses. However, the problem of data centers is highenergy consumption, which has risen by 56% from 2005to 2010, and in 2010 accounted to be between 1.1%and 1.5% of the global electricity use [1]. Apart fromhigh operating costs, this results in substantial carbondioxide (CO2) emissions, which are estimated to be2% of the global emissions [2]. The problem has beenpartially addressed by improvements in the physicalinfrastructure of modern data centers. As reported bythe Open Compute Project1, Facebook’s Oregon datacenter achieves a Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) of1.08, which means that ≈93% of the data center’s energyconsumption are consumed by the computing resources.Therefore, now it is important to focus on the resourcemanagement aspect, i.e., ensuring that the computingresources are efficiently utilized to serve applications.

• A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya are with the Department of Computing andInformation Systems, the University of Melbourne, Australia.E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

1. The Open Compute project. http://opencompute.org/

One method to improve the utilization of data centerresources, which has been shown to be efficient [3]–[14],is dynamic consolidation of Virtual Machines (VMs).This approach leverages the dynamic nature of Cloudworkloads: the VMs are periodically reallocated usinglive migration according to their current resource de-mand in order to minimize the number of active physicalservers, referred to as hosts, required to handle the work-load. The idle hosts are switched to low-power modeswith fast transition times to eliminate the static powerand reduce the overall energy consumption. The hostsare reactivated when the resource demand increases.This approach has basically two objectives, namely min-imization of energy consumption and maximization ofthe Quality of Service (QoS) delivered by the system,which form an energy-performance trade-off.

The QoS requirements can be defined in terms of avariety of metrics and are formalized in the Service LevelAgreements (SLAs). In this work, to specify the QoSrequirements we apply a modification of the workloadindependent metric proposed in our previous work [15].Therefore, the problem transforms into minimization ofenergy consumption under QoS constraints. This prob-lem is too complex to be treated analytically as a whole,as just the VM placement, which is a part of dynamic VMconsolidation, is an NP-hard problem [4], [9], [13]. More-over, many aspects of the problem have to be addressed,e.g., the heterogeneity of physical resources and VMs;non-stationary and unknown workloads, as observed inInfrastructure as a Service (IaaS) environments; powerand performance costs of VM migrations; and the large


scale of Cloud data center infrastructures. Another ar-gument for splitting the problem is decentralization ofthe resource management algorithm, which is importantfor scaling the resource management system for efficienthandling of thousands of servers. Therefore, to makethe problem of dynamic VM consolidation tractable andprovide decentralization, in our previous work [15] wehave proposed its division into 4 sub-problems:

1) Deciding when a host is considered to be over-loaded, so that some VMs should be migrated fromit to other hosts to meet the QoS requirements.

2) Deciding when a host is considered to be under-loaded, so that its VMs should be migrated, andthe host should be switched to a low-power mode.

3) Selecting VMs to migrate from an overloaded host.4) Allocating the VMs selected for migration to other

active or re-activated hosts.

In this paper, we focus on the first sub-problem – theproblem of host overload detection. Detecting when ahost becomes overloaded directly influences the QoS,since if the resource capacity is completely utilized, itis highly likely that the applications are experiencingresource shortage and performance degradation. Whatmakes the problem of host overload detection complexis the necessity to optimize the time-averaged behaviorof the system, while handling a variety of heterogeneousworkloads placed on a single host. To address this prob-lem, most of the current approaches to dynamic VM con-solidation apply either heuristic-based techniques, suchas static utilization thresholds [5]–[8]; decision-makingbased on statistical analysis of historical data [12], [13]; orsimply periodic adaptation of the VM allocation [3], [4].The limitations of these approaches are that they lead tosub-optimal results and do not allow the administratorto explicitly set a QoS goal. In other words, the perfor-mance in regard to the QoS delivered by the systemcan only be adjusted indirectly by tuning parametersof the applied host overload detection algorithm. Incontrast, our approach enables the system administratorto explicitly specify a QoS goal in terms of a workload in-dependent QoS metric. The underlying analytical modelallows a derivation of an optimal randomized controlpolicy for any known stationary workload and a givenstate configuration. Our contributions in this paper are:

1) We analytically show that to improve the quality ofVM consolidation, it is necessary to maximize themean time between VM migrations initiated by thehost overload detection algorithm.

2) We propose an optimal offline algorithm for hostoverload detection, and prove its optimality.

3) We introduce a novel Markov Chain model thatallows a derivation of a randomized control policythat optimally solves the problem of maximizingthe mean time between VM migrations under anexplicitly specified QoS goal for any known sta-tionary workload and a given state configurationin the online setting.

4) To handle unknown non-stationary workloads, weapply the Multisize Sliding Window workload es-timation approach [16] to heuristically build anadapted algorithm, which leads to approximately15% higher mean inter-migration time comparedto the best benchmark algorithm for the inputworkload traces used in our experiments. Theadapted algorithm leads to approximately 88% ofthe mean inter-migration time produced by theoptimal offline algorithm.

We evaluate the algorithm by simulations using real-world workload traces from more than a thousandPlanetLab2 VMs hosted on servers located in more than500 places around the world. Our experiments show thatthe introduced algorithm outperforms the benchmark al-gorithms, while meeting the QoS goal in accordance withthe theoretical model. The algorithm uses a workloadindependent QoS metric and transparently adapts itsbehavior to various workloads using a machine-learningtechnique; therefore, it can be applied in an environmentwith unknown non-stationary workloads, such as IaaS.

It is important to note that the model proposed in thispaper is based on Markov chains requiring a few funda-mental modeling assumptions. First of all, the workloadmust satisfy the Markov property, which implies memo-ryless state transitions and an exponential distribution ofstate transition delays. These assumptions must be takeninto account in an assessment of the applicability of theproposed model to a particular system. A more detaileddiscussion of the modeling assumptions and validationof the assumptions is given in Section 6.4.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.In Section 2, we discuss the related work followed bythe objective of host overload detection and workloadindependent QoS metric in Sections 3 and 4 respectively.We introduce an optimal offline algorithm for the prob-lem of host overload detection in Section 5. In Section 6,we introduce a Markov model for the problem of hostoverload detection and approximate it for unknownnon-stationary workloads in Section 7. In Section 8, wepropose a control algorithm followed by a multi-coreCPU model in Section 9 and an experimental evaluationin Section 10. We conclude the paper with Section 11discussing the results and future research directions.

2 RELATED WORK

Prior approaches to host overload detection for energy-efficient dynamic VM consolidation proposed in the lit-erature can be broadly divided into 3 categories: periodicadaptation of the VM placement (no overload detection),threshold-based heuristics, and decision-making basedon statistical analysis of historical data. One of the firstworks, in which dynamic VM consolidation has been ap-plied to minimize energy consumption in a data center,has been performed by Nathuji and Schwan [3]. They

2. The PlanetLab project. http://www.planet-lab.org/


explored the energy benefits obtained by consolidatingVMs using migration and found that the overall energyconsumption can be significantly reduced. Verma etal. [4] modeled the problem of power-aware dynamicVM consolidation as a bin-packing problem and pro-posed a heuristic that minimizes the data center’s powerconsumption, taking into account the VM migration cost.However, the authors did not apply any algorithm fordetermining when it is necessary to optimize the VMplacement – the proposed heuristic is simply periodicallyinvoked to adapt the placement of VMs.

Zhu et al. [5] studied the dynamic VM consolidationproblem and applied a heuristic of setting a static CPUutilization threshold of 85% to determine when a host isoverloaded. The host is assumed to be overloaded whenthe threshold is exceeded. The 85% utilization thresholdhas been first introduced and justified by Gmach etal. [6] based on their analysis of workload traces. In theirmore recent work, Gmach et al. [7] investigated bene-fits of combining both periodic and reactive threshold-based invocations of the migration controller. VMwareDistributed Power Management [8] operates based onthe same idea with the utilization threshold set to 81%.However, static threshold heuristics are unsuitable forsystems with unknown and dynamic workloads, as theseheuristics do not adapt to workload changes and donot capture the time-averaged behavior of the system.We have enhanced the static threshold heuristic in ourprevious work [15] by dynamically adapting the valueof the threshold according to statistical analysis of theworkload history. In this paper, we use static and dy-namic threshold heuristics as benchmark algorithms inthe experimental evaluation of the proposed approach.

Jung et al. [9] investigated the problem of dy-namic consolidation of VMs running multi-tier web-applications to optimize a global utility function, whilemeeting SLA requirements. The approach is workload-specific, as the SLA requirements are defined in terms ofthe response time precomputed for each transaction typeof the applications. When the request rate deviates outof an allowed interval, the system adapts the placementof VMs and the states of the hosts. Zheng et al. [10] pro-posed automated experimental testing of the efficiencyof a reallocation decision prior to its application, oncethe response time, specified in the SLAs, is violated. Inthe approach proposed by Kumar et al. [11], the resourceallocation is adapted when the application’s SLAs are vi-olated. Wang et al. [17] applied control loops to manageresource allocation under response time QoS constraintsat the cluster and server levels. If the resource capacityof a server is insufficient to meet the applications’ SLAs,a VM is migrated from the server. All these works aresimilar to threshold-based heuristics in that they rely oninstantaneous values of performance characteristics butdo not leverage the observed history of system states toestimate the future behavior of the system and optimizetime-averaged performance metrics.

Guenter et al. [12] implemented an energy-aware

dynamic VM consolidation system focused on web-applications, whose SLAs are defined in terms of theresponse time. The authors applied weighted linear re-gression to predict the future workload and proactivelyoptimize the resource allocation. This approach is inline with the Local Regression (LR) algorithm proposedin our previous work [15], which we use as one ofthe benchmark algorithms in this paper. Bobroff et al.proposed a server overload forecasting technique basedon time-series analysis of historical data [13]. Unfortu-nately, the algorithm description given in the paper is toohigh level, which does not allow us to implement it tocompare with our approach. Weng et al. [18] proposed aload-balancing system for virtualized clusters. A cluster-wide cost of the VM allocation is periodically minimizedto detect overloaded and underloaded hosts, and reallo-cate VMs. This is a related work but with the oppositeobjective – the VMs are deconsolidated to balance theload across the hosts.

As mentioned above, the common limitations of theprior works are that, due to their heuristic basis, theylead to sub-optimal results and do not allow the sys-tem administrator to explicitly set a QoS goal. In thiswork, we propose a novel approach to the problemof host overload detection inspired by the work ofBenini et al. [19] on power management of electronicsystems using Markov decision processes. We build aMarkov chain model for the case of a known stationaryworkload and a given state configuration, and using aworkload independent QoS metric derive a Non-LinearProgramming (NLP) problem formulation. The solutionof the derived NLP problem is the optimal controlpolicy that maximizes the time between VM migrationsunder the specified QoS constraint in the online setting.Since most real-world systems, including IaaS, experi-ence highly variable non-stationary workloads, we ap-ply the Multisize Sliding Window workload estimationtechnique proposed by Luiz et al. [16] to heuristicallyadapt the proposed model to non-stationary stochasticenvironments and practical applications. Although thefinal approach is a heuristic, in contrast to the relatedworks it is based on an analytical model that allows thecomputation of an optimal control policy for any knownstationary workload and a given state configuration.

3 THE OBJECTIVE OF A HOST OVERLOADDETECTION ALGORITHM

In this section, we show that to improve the quality ofVM consolidation, it is necessary to maximize the timeintervals between VM migrations from overloaded hosts.Since VM consolidation is applied to reduce the numberof active physical hosts, the quality of VM consolidationis inversely proportional to H , the mean number ofactive hosts over n time steps:

H =1

n

n∑i=1

ai, (1)


where ai is the number of active hosts at the time stepi = 1, 2, . . . , n. A lower value of H represents a betterquality of VM consolidation.

To investigate the impact of decisions made by hostoverload detection algorithms on the quality of VMconsolidation, we consider an experiment, where at anytime step the host overload detection algorithm caninitiate a migration from a host due to an overload. Thereare two possible consequences of a decision to migratea VM relevant to host overload detection: Case 1, whena VM to be migrated from an overloaded host cannotbe placed on another active host due to insufficientresources, and therefore, a new host has to be activatedto accommodate the VM; and Case 2, when a VM to bemigrated can be placed on another active host. To studyhost overload detection in isolation, we assume that nohosts are switched off during the experiment, i.e., oncea host is activated, it remains active until n.

Let p be the probability of Case 1, i.e., an extra hosthas to be activated to migrate a VM from an over-loaded host determined by the host overload detectionalgorithm. Then, the probability of Case 2 is (1 − p).Let T be a random variable denoting the time betweentwo subsequent VM migrations initiated by the hostoverload detection algorithm. The expected number ofVM migrations initiated by the host overload detectionalgorithm over n time steps is n/E[T ], where E[T ] is theexpected inter-migration time.

Based on the definitions given above, we can defineX ∼ B(n/E[T ], p), a binomially distributed randomvariable denoting the number of extra hosts switchedon due to VM migrations initiated by the host overloaddetection algorithm over n time steps. The expectednumber of extra hosts activated is E[X] = np/E[T ]. LetA be a random variable denoting the time during whichan extra host is active between the time steps 1 and n.The expected value of A can be defined as follows:

E[A] =

b nE[T ]c∑i=1

(n− (i− 1)E[T ])p

=

⌊n

E[T ]

⌋p

2

(n + n−

(⌊n

E[T ]

⌋− 1

)E[T ]

)≤np

2

(1 +

n

E[T ]

).

(2)

Let us rewrite (1) as follows:

H =1

n

n∑i=1

ai

=1

n

n∑i=1

a1 +1

n

n∑i=1

(ai − a1)

=a1 +1

n

n∑i=1

(ai − a1).

(3)

The first term a1 is a constant denoting the number ofhosts that have been initially active and remain active

until the end of the experiment. The second term H∗ =1n

∑ni=1(ai−a1) is the mean number of hosts switched on

due to VM migrations being active per unit of time overn time steps. We are interested in analyzing the averagebehavior, and thus estimating the expected value of H∗.It is proportional to a product of the expected numberof extra hosts switched on due to VM migrations andthe expected activity time of an extra host normalizedby the total time, as shown in (4).

E[H∗] ∝ 1

nE[X]E[A]

≤ 1

n

np

E[T ]

np

2

(1 +

n

E[T ]

)=

np2

2E[T ]

(1 +

n

E[T ]

).

(4)

Since the objective is to improve the quality ofVM consolidation, it is necessary to minimize E[H∗].From (4), the only variable that can be directly controlledby a host overload detection algorithm is E[T ]; therefore,to minimize E[H∗] the objective of a host overload detec-tion algorithm is to maximize E[T ], i.e., to maximize themean time between migrations from overloaded hosts.

4 A WORKLOAD INDEPENDENT QOS METRICTo impose QoS requirements on the system, we applyan extension of the workload independent QoS metric intro-duced in our previous work [15]. We define that a hostcan be in one of two states in regard to its load level:(1) serving regular load; and (2) being overloaded. It isassumed that if a host is overloaded, the VMs allocatedto the host are not being provided with the requiredperformance level leading to performance degradation.To evaluate the overall performance degradation, wedefine a metric denoted Overload Time Fraction (OTF):

OTF (ut) =to(ut)

ta, (5)

where ut is the CPU utilization threshold distinguishingthe non-overload and overload states of the host; to isthe time, during which the host has been overloaded,which is a function of ut; and ta is the total time, duringwhich the host has been active. Using this metric, SLAscan be defined as the maximum allowed value of OTF.For example, if in the SLAs it is stated that OTF mustbe less or equal to 10%, it means that on average ahost is allowed to be overloaded for not more than 10%of its activity time. Since the provider is interested inmaximizing the resource utilization while meeting theSLAs, from his perspective this requirement correspondsto the QoS goal of OTF → 10%, while OTF ≤ 10%. Thedefinition of the metric for a single host can be extendedto a set of hosts by substituting the time values by theaggregated time values over the set of hosts.

The exact definition of the state of a host, when itis overloaded, depends on the specific system require-ments. However, the value of the CPU utilization thresh-old ut defining the states of a host does not affect the


model proposed in this paper, the model allows settingthe threshold to any value. For example, in our experi-ments, we define that a host is overloaded, when its CPUutilization is 100%, in which case the VMs allocated tothis host do not get the required CPU capacity leadingto performance degradation. The reasoning behind thisis the observation that if a host serving applications isexperiencing 100% utilization, the performance of theapplications is constrained by the host’s capacity; there-fore, the VMs are not being provided with the requiredperformance level.

It has been claimed in the literature that the perfor-mance of servers degrade, when their load approaches100% [20], [21]. For example, the study of Srikantaiahet al. [21] has shown that the performance deliveredby the CPU degrades when the utilization is higherthan 70%. If due to system requirements, it is importantto avoid performance degradation, the proposed OTFmetric allows the specification of the CPU utilizationthreshold at the required level below 100%. The host isconsidered to be overloaded, when the CPU utilizationis higher than the specified threshold.

In general, other system resources, such as memory,disk, and network bandwidth, should also be take intoaccount in the definition of QoS requirements. However,in this paper we only consider the CPU, as it is one ofthe main resources that are usually oversubscribed byCloud providers. Therefore, in our analysis we assumethat the other system resources are not significantly over-subscribed and do not become performance bottlenecks.

Verma et al. [22] proposed a similar metric for es-timating the SLA violation level in a system, whichthey defined as the number of time instances, whenthe capacity of a server is less than the demand of allapplications placed on it. However, their metric showsa non-normalized absolute value, which, for example,cannot be used to compare systems processing the sameworkload for different periods of time. In contrast, theOTF metric is normalized and does not depend on thelength of the time period under consideration.

In the next section, based on the objective of a hostoverload detection algorithm derived in Section 3 andthe OTF metric introduced in this section, we proposean optimal offline algorithm for the problem of hostoverload detection and prove its optimality.

5 AN OPTIMAL OFFLINE ALGORITHM

As shown in Section 3, it is necessary to maximize themean time between VM migrations initiated by the hostoverload detection algorithm, which can be achieved bymaximizing each individual inter-migration time inter-val. Therefore, we limit the problem formulation to asingle VM migration, i.e., the time span of a probleminstance is from the end of a previous VM migration andto the end of the next. Given the results of Sections 3and 4, the problem of host overload detection can beformulated as an optimization problem (6)-(7).

ta(tm, ut)→ max (6)to(tm,ut)ta(tm,ut)

≤M, (7)

where tm is the time when a VM migration has beeninitiated; ut is the CPU utilization threshold defining theoverload state of the host; to(tm, ut) is the time, duringwhich the host has been overloaded, which is a functionof tm and ut; ta is the total time, during which the hosthas been active, which is also a function of tm and ut;and M is the limit on the maximum allowed OTF value,which is a QoS goal expressed in terms of OTF. Theaim of a host overload detection algorithm is to selectthe tm that maximizes the total time until a migration,while satisfying the constraint (7). It is important to notethat the optimization problem (6)-(7) is only relevantto host overload detection, and does not relate to hostunderload situations. In other words, maximizing theactivity time of a host is only important for highly loadedhosts. Whereas for underloaded hosts, the problem isthe opposite – the activity time needs to be minimized;however, this problem is not the focus of the currentpaper and should be investigated separately.

In the offline setting, the state of the system is knownat any point in time. Consider an offline algorithm thatpasses through the history of system states backwardsstarting from the last known state. The algorithm decre-ments the time and re-calculates the OTF value to(tm,ut)

ta(tm,ut)

at each iteration. The algorithm returns the time thatcorresponds to the current iteration if the constraint (7)is satisfied (Algorithm 1).

Algorithm 1 An Optimal Offline Algorithm (OPT)Input: A system state historyInput: M , the maximum allowed OTFOutput: A VM migration time

1: while history is not empty do2: if OTF of history ≤M then3: return the time of the last history state4: else5: drop the last state from history6: end if7: end while

Theorem 1: Algorithm 1 is an optimal offline algorithm(OPT) for the problem of host overload detection.

Proof: Let the time interval covered by the systemstate history be [t0, tn], and tm be the time returnedby Algorithm 1. Then, according to the algorithm thesystem states corresponding to the time interval (tm, tn]do not satisfy the constraint (7). Since tm is the rightbound of the interval [t0, tm], then tm is the maximumpossible time that satisfies the constraint (7). Therefore,tm is the solution of the optimization problem (6)-(7),and Algorithm 1 is an optimal offline algorithm for theproblem of host overload detection.


6 A MARKOV CHAIN MODEL FOR THE HOSTOVERLOAD DETECTION PROBLEM

In this section, we base our model on the definitions ofMarkov chains, a mathematical framework for statisticalmodeling of real-world processes. Bolch [23] provides adetailed introduction to Markov chains.

6.1 The Host ModelEach VM allocated to a host at each point in time utilizesa part of the CPU capacity determined by the applicationworkload. The CPU utilization created over a periodof time by a set of VMs allocated to a host constitutesthe host’s workload. For the initial analysis, we assumethat the workload is known a priori, stationary, andsatisfies the Markov property. In other words, the CPUutilization of a host measured at discrete time steps canbe described by a single time-homogeneous DTMC.

There is a controller component, which monitors theCPU utilization of the host and according to a host over-load detection algorithm decides when a VM should bemigrated from the host to satisfy the QoS requirements,while maximizing the time between VM migrations.According to Section 5, we limit the problem formulationto a single VM migration, i.e., the time span of a probleminstance is from the end of a previous VM migration tothe end of the next.

To describe a host as a DTMC, we assign states to Nsubsequent intervals of the CPU utilization. For example,if N = 11, we assign the state 1 to all possible valuesof the CPU utilization within the interval [0%, 10%), 2to the CPU utilization within [10%, 20%), . . . , N to thevalue 100%. The state space S of the DTMC containsN states, which correspond to the defined CPU utiliza-tion intervals. Using this state definition and knowingthe workload of a host in advance, by applying theMaximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method it ispossible to derive a matrix of transition probabilities P.The matrix is constructed by estimating the probabilitiesof transitions p̂ij =

cij∑k∈S cik

between the defined N

states of the DTMC for i, j ∈ S, where cij is the numberof transitions between states i and j.

We add an additional state (N+1) to the Markov chaincalled an absorbing state. A state k ∈ S is said to be anabsorbing state if and only if no other state of the Markovchain can be reached from it, i.e., pkk = 1. In other words,once the Markov chain reaches the state k, it stays in thatstate indefinitely. The resulting extended state space isS∗ = S ∪ {(N + 1)}. For our problem, the absorbingstate (N + 1) represents the state where the DTMCtransitions once a VM migration is initiated. Accordingto this definition, the control policy can be describedby a vector of the probabilities of transitions from anynon-absorbing state to the absorbing state (N + 1), i.e.,the probabilities of VM migrations, which we denote mi,where i ∈ S. To add the state (N +1) into the model, theinitial transition probability matrix P is extended with acolumn of unknown transition probabilities m = [mi]

∀i ∈ S resulting in an extended matrix of transitionprobabilities P∗:

P∗ =

p∗11 · · · p∗1N m1

.... . .

......

p∗N1 · · · p∗NN mN

0 0 0 1

, (8)

where p∗ij are defined as follows:

p∗ij = pij(1−mi), ∀i, j ∈ S. (9)

In general, the workload experienced by the host’sVMs can lead to any CPU utilization from 0% to 100%;therefore, the original DTMC can be assumed to beergodic. We will restrict the extended DTMC to the statesin S; therefore, using Q = P−I [23], the extended matrixof transition probabilities P∗ can be transformed into acorresponding extended matrix of transition rates Q∗:

Q∗ =

p∗11 − 1 · · · p∗1N m1

.... . .

......

p∗N1 · · · p∗NN − 1 mN

0 0 0 0

. (10)

In the next section, we formulate the QoS constraint interms of the introduced model, derived extended matrixof transition rates Q∗, and OTF metric.

6.2 The QoS ConstraintLet

L(t) =

∫ t

0

π(u) du, (11)

then Li(t) denotes the total expected time the CTMCspends in the state i during the interval [0, t). By inte-grating an equation for the unconditional state probabilityvector π(t): dπ(t)/dt = π(t)Q on both sides, a newdifferential equation for L(t) is derived [23]:

d L(t)

dt= L(t)Q + π(0), L(0) = 0. (12)

The expected time spent by the CTMC before absorp-tion can be calculated by finding the limit LS(∞) =limt→∞ LS(t) restricting the state space to the states inS. The limit exists due to a non-zero probability of atransition to the absorbing state (N + 1). However, thelimit does not exist for the state (N + 1). Therefore,to calculate LS(∞), the extended infinitesimal generatormatrix Q∗ is restricted to the states in S, resulting ina matrix Q∗S of the size N × N . The initial probabilityvector π(0) is also restricted to the states in S resulting inπS(0). Restricting the state space to non-absorbing statesallows the computation of limt→∞ on both sides of (12)resulting in the following linear equation [23]:

LS(∞)Q∗S = −πS(0). (13)


Let N denote the state of a host when it is overloaded,e.g., when the CPU utilization is equal to 100%, thenthe expected time spent in the state N before absorptioncan be calculated by finding LN (∞) from a solution ofthe system of linear equations (13). Similarly, the totalexpected time of the host being active can be found as∑

i∈S Li(∞). Letting the VM migration time be Tm, theexpected OTF can be calculated as follows:

OTF =Tm + LN (∞)

Tm +∑

i∈S Li(∞). (14)

6.3 The Optimization ProblemBy the solution of (13), closed-form equations forL1(∞), L2(∞), . . . , LN (∞) are obtained. The unknownsin these equations are m1,m2, . . . ,mN , which completelydescribe the policy of the controller. For our problem,the utility function is the total expected time untilabsorption, as the objective is to maximize the inter-migration time. To introduce the QoS goal in the problemformulation, we specify a limit M on the maximumallowed value of the OTF metric as a constraint resultingin the following optimization problem:∑

i∈SLi(∞)→ max

Tm + LN (∞)

Tm +∑

i∈S Li(∞)≤M.

(15)

The equations (15) form an NLP problem. The solutionof this NLP problem is the vector m of the probabilitiesof transitions to the absorbing state, which forms theoptimal control policy defined as a PMF m = [mi] ∀i ∈ S.At every time step, the optimal control policy migrates aVM with probability mi, where i ∈ S is the current state.The control policy is deterministic if ∃k ∈ S : mk = 1 and∀i ∈ S, i 6= k : mi = 0, otherwise the policy is randomized.

6.4 Modeling AssumptionsThe introduced model allows the computation of theoptimal control policy of a host overload detection con-troller for a given stationary workload and a given stateconfiguration. It is important to take into account thatthis result is based on a few fundamental modelingassumptions. First of all, it is assumed that the systemsatisfies the Markov property, or in other words, thesojourn times (i.e., the time a CTMC remains in a state)are exponentially distributed. Assuming an exponentialdistribution of sojourn times may not be accurate inmany systems. For instance, state transition delays canbe deterministic due to a particular task scheduling,or follow other than exponential statistical distribution,such as a bell-shaped distribution. Another implicationof the Markov property is the assumption of memorylessstate transitions, which means that the future state can bepredicted solely based on the knowledge of the currentstate. It is possible to envision systems, in which futurestates depend on more than one past state.

Another assumption is that the workload is stationaryand known a priori, which does not hold in typicalcomputing environments. In the next section, we showhow the introduced model can be heuristically adaptedto handle unknown non-stationary workloads. The pro-posed heuristically adapted model removes the assump-tion of stationary and known workloads; however, theassumptions implied by the Markov property must stillhold. In Section 10, we evaluate the proposed heuristi-cally adapted model and test the assumptions through asimulation study using real workload traces from morethan a thousand PlanetLab VMs. The simulation resultsshow that the model is efficient for this type of mixedcomputing workloads.

With a correct understanding of the basic model as-sumptions and careful assessment of the applicability ofour model to a particular system, an application of themodel can bring substantial performance benefits to theresource management algorithms. As demonstrated byour simulation study in Section 10, our approach out-performs the benchmark algorithms in terms of both themean inter-migration time and the precision of meetingthe specified QoS goal.

7 NON-STATIONARY WORKLOADS

The model introduced in Section 6 works with theassumption that the workload is stationary and known.However, this is not the case in systems with unknownnon-stationary workloads, such as IaaS. One of theways to adapt the model defined for known stationaryworkloads to the conditions of initially unknown non-stationary workloads is to apply the Sliding Windowworkload estimation approach proposed by Chung etal. [24]. The base idea is to approximate a non-stationaryworkload as a sequence of stationary workloads U =(u1, u2, . . . , uNu) that are enabled one after another. Inthis model, the transition probability matrix P becomesa function of the current stationary workload P(u).

Chung et al. [24] called a policy that makes idealdecisions for a current stationary workload ui the bestadaptive policy. However, the best adaptive policy re-quires the perfect knowledge of the whole sequence ofworkloads U and the times, at which the workloadschange. In reality, a model of a workload ui can onlybe built based on the observed history of the systembehavior. Moreover, the time at which the current work-load changes is unknown. Therefore, it is necessary toapply a heuristic that achieves results comparable to thebest adaptive policy. According to the Sliding Windowapproach, a time window of length lw slides over timealways capturing last lw events. Let cij be the observednumber of transitions between states i and j, i, j ∈ S,during the last window lw. Then, applying the MLEmethod, the transition probability pij is estimated asp̂ij =

cij∑k∈S cik

. As the window length lw → ∞, theestimator p̂ij converges to the real value of the transition


probability pij if the length of the current stationaryworkload ui is equal to lw [24].

However, the Sliding Window approach introduces 3sources of errors in the estimated workload:

1) The biased estimation error, which appears whenthe window length lw is shorter than the length ofa sequence of outliers.

2) The resolution error (referred to as the samplingerror by Luiz et al. [16]), which is introduced dueto the maximum precision of the estimates beinglimited to 1/lw.

3) The adaptation time (referred to as the identifica-tion delay by Luiz et al. [16]), which is a delayrequired to completely fill the window with newdata after a switch from a stationary workload ui−1to a new stationary workload ui.

Luiz et al. [16] extended the Sliding Window ap-proach by employing multiple windows with differentsizes, where a window to use is selected dynamicallyusing the information about the previous system stateand variances of the estimates obtained from differentwindows. They referred to the extended approach asthe Multisize Sliding Window approach. The proposedalgorithm dynamically selects the best window size toeliminate the bias estimate error and benefit from boththe small sampling error of large window sizes and smallidentification error of small window sizes. In this paper,we apply the Multisize Sliding Window approach to themodel introduced in Section 6 to adapt it to initiallyunknown non-stationary workloads.

We adapt the calculation of the expected OTF (14) bytransforming it to a function of t ∈ R+ to incorporate theinformation that is known by the algorithm at the timeof decision making:

OTF (t) =Tm + y(t) + LN (∞)

Tm + t +∑

i∈S Li(∞), (16)

where y(t) is a function returning the total time spent inthe state N during the time interval [0, t].

7.1 Multisize Sliding Window Workload EstimationIn this section we briefly introduce the Multisize Slid-ing Window approach; for more details, reasoning andanalysis please refer to Luiz et al. [16]. A high levelview of the estimation algorithm is shown in Figure 1.First of all, to eliminate the biased estimation error, theprevious history is stored separately for each state inS resulting in S state windows Wi, i = 1, 2, . . . , S. LetJ , D, and NJ be positive numbers; L = (J, J + D,J +2D, . . . , J +(NJ −1)D) a sequence of window sizes; andlwmax = J + (NJ − 1)D the maximum window size. Ateach time t, the Previous State Buffer stores the systemstate st−1 at the time t − 1 and controls the windowselector, which selects a window Wi such that st−1 = i.The notation W k

i (t) denotes the content of the windowWi in a position k at the time t. The selected windowshifts its content one position to the right to store the

1. Previous

State Buffer

4. Window Size

Selector

5. Estimate

Selector

Selected

estimates

New estimate

Variances and acceptable

variances

Estimates

Selected window sizes

st-1

st-1

2. State

Windows

3. Estimate

Windows

st

. . .

Fig. 1. The Multisize Sliding Window workload estimation

current system state: W k+1i (t) = W k

i (t), ∀k = 1, . . . , lwmax ;discards the rightmost element W lwmax

i (t); and stores st inthe position W 1

i (t). Once the selected state window Wi isupdated, new probability estimates are computed basedon this state window for all window sizes as follows:

p̂ij(t,m) =

∑Lm

k=1(W ki (t) == j)

Lm, (17)

where “==” is the equivalence operation, i.e., (1 == 1) =1, (1 == 0) = 0. A computed probability estimate isstored in NJ out of the SSNJ estimate windows Eijm(t),where i, j ∈ S, and m is the estimate window size index,1 ≤ m ≤ NJ . NJ estimate windows Eijm(t) are selectedsuch that st−1 = i and st = j, ∀m = 1, . . . , NJ . Similarlyto the update process of the state windows, the selectedestimate windows shift their contents one position tothe right, discard the rightmost element ELm

ijm(t), andstore p̂ij(t,Lm) in the position E1

ijm(t). To evaluate theprecision of the probability estimates, the next step is toestimate the variance S(i, j, t,m) of the probability esti-mates obtained from every updated estimate window:

p̄ij(t,m)) =1

Lm

Lm∑k=1

Ekijm(t),

S(i, j, t,m) =1

Lm − 1

Lm∑k=1

(Ekijm(t)− p̄ij(t,Lm))2,

(18)

where p̄ij(t,m) is the mean value of the probabilityestimates calculated from the state window Wi of lengthLm. In order to determine what values of the variancecan be considered to be low enough, a function ofacceptable variance Vac(p̂ij(t,m),m) is defined [16]:

Vac(p̂ij(t,m),m) =p̂ij(t,Lm)(1− p̂ij(t,Lm))

Lm. (19)

Using the function of acceptable variance, probabilityestimates are considered to be adequate if S(i, j, t,m) ≤Vac(p̂ij(t,m),m). Based on the definitions given above,a window size selection algorithm can be defined (Al-gorithm 2). According to the selected window sizes,


transition probability estimates are selected from theestimate windows.

Algorithm 2 The Window Size Selection AlgorithmInput: J , D, NJ , t, i, jOutput: The selected window size

1: lw ← J2: for k = 0 to NJ − 1 do3: if S(i, j, t, k) ≤ Vac(p̂ij(t, k), k) then4: lw ← J + kD5: else6: break loop7: end if8: end for9: return lw

The presented approach addresses the errors men-tioned in Section 7 as follows:

1) The biased estimation error is eliminated by intro-ducing dedicated history windows for each state:even if a burst of transitions to a particular state islonger than the length of the window, the historyof transitions from the other states is preserved.

2) The sampling error is minimized by selecting thelargest window size constrained by the acceptablevariance function.

3) The identification error is minimized by selectinga smaller window size when the variance is high,which can be caused by a change to the nextstationary workload.

8 THE CONTROL ALGORITHM

We refer to a control algorithm based on the modelintroduced in Section 6 as the Optimal Markov HostOverload Detection (MHOD-OPT) algorithm. We referto the MHOD-OPT algorithm adapted to unknown non-stationary workloads using the Multisize Sliding Win-dow workload estimation technique introduced in Sec-tion 7 as the Markov Host Overload Detection (MHOD)algorithm. A high-level view of the MHOD-OPT algo-rithm is shown in Algorithm 3. In the online setting, thealgorithm is invoked periodically at each time step tomake a VM migration decision.

Algorithm 3 The MHOD-OPT AlgorithmInput: Transition probabilitiesOutput: A decision on whether to migrate a VM

1: Build the objective and constraint functions2: Invoke the brute-force search to find the m vector3: if a feasible solution exists then4: Extract the VM migration probability5: if the probability is < 1 then6: return false7: end if8: end if9: return true

Closed-form equations for L1(∞), L2(∞), . . . , LN (∞)are precomputed offline from (13); therefore, the run-time computation is not required. The values of transi-tion probabilities are substituted into the equations forL1(∞), L2(∞), . . . , LN (∞), and the objective and con-straint functions of the NLP problem are generated bythe algorithm. To solve the NLP problem, we applied abrute-force search algorithm with a step of 0.1, as itsperformance was sufficient for the purposes of simu-lations. In MHOD-OPT, a decision to migrate a VM ismade only if either no feasible solution can be found, orthe migration probability corresponding to the currentstate is 1. The justification for this is the fact that if afeasible solution exists and the migration probability isless than 1, then for the current conditions there is nohard requirement for an immediate migration of a VM.

Algorithm 4 The MHOD AlgorithmInput: A CPU utilization historyOutput: A decision on whether to migrate a VM

1: if the CPU utilization history size > Tl then2: Convert the last CPU utilization value to a state3: Invoke the Multisize Sliding Window estimation

to obtain the estimates of transition probabilities4: Invoke the MHOD-OPT algorithm5: return the decision returned by MHOD-OPT6: end if7: return false

The MHOD algorithm shown in Algorithm 4 can beviewed as a wrapper over the MHOD-OPT algorithm,which adds the Multisize Sliding Window workload esti-mation. During the initial learning phase Tl, which in ourexperiments was set to 30 time steps, the algorithm doesnot migrate a VM. Once the learning phase is over, the al-gorithm applies the Multisize Sliding Window techniqueto estimate the probabilities of transitions between thestates and invokes the MHOD-OPT algorithm passingthe transition probability estimates as the argument.The result of the MHOD-OPT algorithm invocation isreturned to the user.

9 THE CPU MODEL

The models and algorithms proposed in this paper aresuitable for both single core and multi-core CPU archi-tectures. The capacity of a single core CPU is modeled interms of its clock frequency F . A VM’s CPU utilizationui is relative to the VM’s CPU frequency fi and istransformed into a fraction of the host’s CPU utilizationU . These fractions are summed up over the N VMsallocated to the host to obtain the host’s CPU utilization,as shown in (20).

U = F

N∑i

fiui. (20)

For the purpose of the host overload detection prob-lem, we model multi-core CPUs as proposed in our


TABLE 1An artificial non-stationary workload

0-60 s 60-86 s 86-160 s

p00 1.0 0.0 1.0p01 0.0 1.0 0.0p10 1.0 0.0 1.0p11 0.0 1.0 0.0

TABLE 2Comparison of MHOD, MHOD-OPT and OPT

MHOD-30 MHOD-OPT-30 OPT-30

OTF 29.97% 16.30% 16.30%Time 87 160 160

previous work [15]. A multi-core CPU with n coreseach having a frequency f is modeled as a single coreCPU with the nf frequency. In other words, F in (20)is replaced by nf . This simplification is justified, asapplications and VMs are not tied down to a specificcore, but can by dynamically assigned to an arbitrarycore by a time-shared scheduling algorithm. The onlyphysical constraint is that the CPU capacity allocatedto a VM cannot exceed the capacity of a single core.Removing this constraint would require the VM to beexecuted on more than one core in parallel. However,automatic parallelization of VMs and their applicationscannot be assumed.

10 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

10.1 Importance of Precise Workload Estimation

The purpose of this section is to show that the precisionof the workload estimation technique is important toachieve high performance of the MHOD algorithm. Toshow this, we constructed an artificial workload thatillustrates a case when the MHOD algorithm with theMultisize Sliding Window workload estimation leadsto lower performance compared to MHOD-OPT due toits inability to adapt quickly enough to a highly non-stationary workload.

We define that the host can be in one of two possiblestates {0, 1}, where the state 1 means that the host isbeing overloaded. Let the non-stationary workload becomposed of a sequence of three stationary workloads,whose probabilities of transitions between the statesare shown in Table 1. We used simulations to evaluatethe algorithms. For this experiment, the OTF constraintwas set to 30%, and the sequence of window sizes forthe Multisize Sliding Window workload estimation was(30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100). The code of the simulationsis written in Clojure3. To foster and encourage repro-ducibility of experiments, we have made the source codeof all our simulations publicly available online4.

3. The Clojure programming language. http://clojure.org/4. https://github.com/beloglazov/tpds-2013-simulation/

16012080400

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

16012080400

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

Probabilities from state 0 to 0 Probabilities from state 1 to 1

Estimates from state 0 to 0 Estimates from state 1 to 1

Fig. 2. The estimated p̂00 compared to p00

The simulation results are shown in Table 2. Accordingto the results, for the workload defined in Table 1 theMHOD-OPT algorithm provides exactly the same perfor-mance as the optimal offline algorithm (OPT). However,the MHOD algorithm migrates a VM at the beginningof the third stationary workload because it is not able toimmediately recognize the change of the workload, asshown for p00 and p̂00 in Figure 2.

In summary, even though the Multisize Sliding Win-dow workload estimation provides high quality of es-timation [16], in some cases it may result in an infe-rior performance of the MHOD algorithm compared toMHOD-OPT. This result was expected, as MHOD-OPTskips the estimation phase and utilizes the knowledgeof real transition probabilities. The artificial workloadused in this section was specifically constructed to showthat imprecise workload estimation may lead to unsatis-factory performance of the MHOD algorithm. However,as shown in the next section, the MHOD algorithmperforms closely to OPT for real-world workloads.

10.2 Evaluation Using PlanetLab Workload TracesIn an environment with multiple hosts, the MHODalgorithm operates in a decentralized manner, whereindependent instances of the algorithm are executed onevery host. Therefore, to evaluate the MHOD algorithmunder a real-world workload, we simulated a single hostwith a quad-core CPU serving a set of heterogeneousVMs. The clock frequency of a single core of the hostwas set to 3 GHz, which according to the model in-troduced in Section 9 transforms into 12 GHz. TheseCPU characteristics correspond to a mid-range AmazonEC2 physical server type [25]. The amount of the host’smemory was assumed to be enough for the VMs. TheCPU frequency of a VM was randomly set to one ofthe values approximately corresponding to the AmazonEC2 instance types5: 1.7 GHz, 2 GHz, 2.4 GHz, and3 GHz. The CPU utilization of the VMs was simulatedbased on the data provided as a part of the CoMonproject, a monitoring infrastructure for PlanetLab [26].The project provides the data measured every 5 minutesfrom more than a thousand VMs running in more than

5. http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/


500 locations around the world. For our experiments, wehave randomly chosen 10 days from the workload tracescollected during March and April 2011.

For a simulation run, a randomly generated set of VMswith the CPU utilization traces assigned is allocated tothe host. At each time step, the host overload detectionalgorithm makes a decision of whether a VM should bemigrated from the host. The simulation runs until eitherthe CPU utilization traces are over, or until a decision tomigrate a VM is made by the algorithm. At the end of asimulation run, the resulting value of the OTF metric iscalculated according to (5). The algorithm of assigningthe workload traces to a set of VMs is presented in Algo-rithm 5. To avoid trivial cases and stress the algorithmswith more dynamic workloads, we decided to filter theoriginal workload traces. We constrained the maximumallowed OTF after the first 30 time steps to 10% andthe minimum overall OTF to 20%. Using the workloadassignment algorithm, we pregenerated 100 different setsof VMs that meet the defined OTF constraints and ranevery algorithm for each set of VMs. The workload dataused in the experiments are publicly available online6.

Algorithm 5 The Workload Trace Assignment AlgorithmInput: A set of CPU utilization tracesOutput: A set of VMs

1: Randomly select the host’s minimum CPU utilizationat the time 0 from 80%, 85%, 90%, 95%, and 100%

2: while the host’s utilization < the threshold do3: Randomly select the new VM’s CPU frequency4: Randomly assign a CPU utilization trace5: Add the new VM to the set of created VMs6: end while7: return the set of created VMs

10.2.1 Benchmark AlgorithmsIn addition to the optimal offline algorithm introducedin Section 5, we implemented a number of benchmarkalgorithms and ran them with different parameters tocompare with the proposed MHOD algorithm. In thissection we give a brief overview of the benchmark algo-rithms; a detailed description of each of them is given inour previous work [15]. The first algorithm is a simpleheuristic based on setting a CPU utilization threshold(THR), which monitors the host’s CPU utilization andmigrates a VM if the defined threshold is exceeded. Thisthreshold-based heuristic was applied in a number ofrelated works [5]–[8]. The next two algorithms applystatistical analysis to dynamically adapt the CPU utiliza-tion threshold: based on the median absolute deviation(MAD), and on the interquartile range (IQR) [15].

Two other algorithms are based on estimation of thefuture CPU utilization using local regression (i.e., Loessmethod) and a modification of the method robust tooutliers, referred to as robust local regression [15]. We

6. https://github.com/beloglazov/tpds-2013-workload/

denote these algorithms Local Regression (LR) and LocalRegression Robust (LRR) respectively. The LR algorithmis in line with the regression-based approach proposedby Guenter et al. [12]. Another algorithm continuouslymonitors the host’s OTF and decides to migrate a VM ifthe current value exceeds the defined parameter; we re-fer to this algorithm as the OTF Threshold (OTFT) algo-rithm. The last benchmark algorithm, the OTF ThresholdMigration Time (OTFTM) algorithm, is similar to OTFT;however, it uses an extended metric that includes theVM migration time:

OTF (to, ta) =Tm + toTm + ta

, (21)

where to is the time, during which the host has beenoverloaded; ta is the total time, during which the hosthas been active; and Tm is the VM migration time.

10.2.2 MHOD Compared with Benchmark AlgorithmsTo shorten state configuration names of the MHODalgorithm, we refer to them by denoting the thresholdsbetween the utilization intervals. For example, a 3-stateconfiguration ([0%, 80%), [80%, 100%), 100%) is referredto as 80-100. We simulated the following 2- and 3-stateconfigurations of the MHOD algorithm: 80-100, 90-100,and 100 (a 2-state configuration). We simulated each stateconfiguration with the OTF parameter set to 10%, 20%and 30%. In our experiments, the VM migration timewas set to 30 seconds.

In order to find out whether different numbers ofstates and different state configurations of the MHODalgorithm significantly influence the algorithm’s perfor-mance in regard to the time until a migration and the re-sulting OTF value, we conducted paired t-tests. The testson the produced time until a migration data for compar-ing MHOD 80-100 with MHOD 100 and MHOD 90-100with MHOD 100 showed non-statistically significant dif-ferences with the p-values 0.20 and 0.34 respectively. Thismeans that the simulated 2- and 3-state configurations ofthe MHOD algorithm on average lead to approximatelythe same time until a migration. However, there arestatistically significant differences in the resulting OTFvalue produced by these algorithms: 0.023% with 95%Confidence Interval (CI) (0.001%, 0.004%) and p-value =0.033 for MHOD 100 compared with MHOD 80-100; and0.022% with 95% CI (0.000%, 0.004%) and p-value = 0.048for MHOD 100 compared with MHOD 90-100. However,differences in the resulting OTF value in the order of lessthan 0.1% are not practically significant; therefore, weconclude that the simulated 2- and 3-state configurationsproduce approximately the same results. Further in thissection, we compare only the ([0%, 100%), 100%) 2-stateconfiguration of MHOD with the benchmark algorithms,as it requires simpler computations compared with the3-state configurations.

The experimental results comparing the 2-state con-figuration of the MHOD algorithm (for the MHODalgorithm, the OTF parameter is denoted in the suffix


OPT-3

0

OPT-2

0

OPT-1

0

MH

OD

-30

MH

OD

-20

MH

OD

-10

LRR-1

.0

LRR-1

.1

LRR-1

.2

LR-1

.0

LR-1

.1

LR-1

.2

IQR-2

.0

IQR-1

.0

MA

D-3

.0

MA

D-2

.0

THR-1

00

TH

R-9

0

TH

R-8

0

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Algorithm

Res

ult

ing

OT

F v

alu

e

(a) The resulting OTF value

OPT-3

0

OPT-2

0

OPT-1

0

MH

OD

-30

MH

OD

-20

MH

OD

-10

LRR-1

.0

LRR-1

.1

LRR-1

.2

LR-1

.0

LR-1

.1

LR-1

.2

IQR-2

.0

IQR-1

.0

MA

D-3

.0

MA

D-2

.0

THR-1

00

TH

R-9

0

TH

R-8

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Algorithm

Tim

e u

nti

l a

mig

rati

on

, x

10

00

s

(b) The time until a migration

Fig. 3. The resulting OTF value and time until a migration produced by the MHOD and benchmark algorithms

of the algorithm’s name, e.g., for 10%, 20% and 30%:MHOD-10, MHOD-20 and MHOD-30) with the bench-mark algorithms are depicted in Figures 3a and 3b. Itis remarkable how closely the resulting OTF value ofthe MHOD algorithm resembles the value set as theparameter of the algorithm for 10% and 20%. The widerspread for 30% is explained by the characteristics ofthe workload: in many cases the overall OTF is lowerthan 30%, which is also reflected in the resulting OTF ofthe optimal offline algorithm (OPT-30). The experimentalresults show that the algorithm is capable of meetingthe specified OTF goal, which is consistent with thetheoretical model introduced in Section 6.

Figures 3a and 3b show that the THR, MAD and IQRalgorithms are not competitive compared with the LR,LRR and MHOD algorithms, as the produced time untila migration is low and does not significantly improveby adjustments of the algorithm parameters. To comparethe LR and LRR algorithms with the MHOD algorithms,we ran additional simulations of the MHOD algorithmwith the OTF parameter matching the mean value of theresulting OTF produced by LR and LRR. The followingvalues of the OTF parameter of the MHOD algorithmwere set to match the mean resulting OTF values of LRand LRR: to match LR-1.2, LR-1.1 and LR-1.0 – 6.75%,15.35% and 40% respectively; to match LRR-1.2, LRR-1.1and LRR-1.0 – 6.76%, 14.9% and 36.6% respectively.

As intended, paired t-tests for the comparison ofMHOD with LR and MHOD with LRR showed non-statistically significant differences in the resulting OTFvalues with both p-values > 0.7. Results of paired t-tests for comparing the time until a migration producedby the algorithms with matching resulting OTF valuesare shown in Table 3. The results of the comparison ofthe MHOD and LRR algorithms are graphically depictedin Figure 4. According to the results, there is a statisti-cally significant difference in the time until a migrationproduced by the algorithms: the MHOD algorithm onaverage leads to approximately 16.4% and 15.4% better

TABLE 3Paired T-tests with 95% CIs for comparing the time until

a migration produced by MHOD, LR and LRR

Alg. 1 (×103) Alg. 2 (×103) Diff. (×103) p-value

MHOD (39.80) LR (34.20) 5.61 (3.55, 7.66) < 0.001MHOD (38.69) LRR (33.51) 5.17 (2.97, 7.38) < 0.001

time until a migration than LR and LRR respectivelywith the same mean resulting OTF values. It is alsointeresting to notice from Figure 4 that the spread ofthe resulting OTF produced by the MHOD algorithm ismuch narrower than LRR’s, which means that MHODmore precisely meets the QoS goal.

10.2.3 Comparison of MHOD with OTFT and OTFTM

OTFT and OTFTM are two other algorithms that apartfrom the MHOD algorithm allow explicit specificationof the QoS goal in terms of the OTF parameter. Tocompare the performance of the OTFT, OTFTM andMHOD algorithms we introduce another performancemetric. This metric is the percentage of SLA violations

Mean OTF

Algorithm

27.6

%

14.1

%7.

2%

MH

OD

-36.

6

LRR-1

.0

MH

OD

-14.

9

LRR-1

.1

MH

OD

-6.8

LRR-1

.2

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

27.6

%

14.1

%7.

2%

MH

OD

-36.

6

LRR-1

.0

MH

OD

-14.

9

LRR-1

.1

MH

OD

-6.8

LRR-1

.2

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Resulting OTF value

7.2%

14.1%

27.6%

Time until a migration, x1000 s

Fig. 4. Comparison of MHOD with LRR


OTF

Algorithm

30%

20%

10%

MH

OD

OTFTM

OTFT

MH

OD

OTFTM

OTFT

MH

OD

OTFTM

OTFT

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

30%

20%

10%

MH

OD

OTFTM

OTFT

MH

OD

OTFTM

OTFT

MH

OD

OTFTM

OTFT

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Resulting OTF value Time until a migration, x1000 s

Fig. 5. Comparison of OTFT, OTFTM and MHOD

relatively to the total number of VM migrations, whereSLA requirements are defined as OTF ≤ M , M is thelimit on the maximum allowed resulting OTF value.The SLA violation counter is incremented if after a VMmigration the resulting OTF value is higher than thevalue M specified in the SLAs.

We simulated the OTFT, OTFTM and MHOD algo-rithms using the PlanetLab workload described earlier.We simulated the algorithms setting the following valuesof the OTF parameter as the SLA requirement: 10%, 20%and 30%. The simulation results are shown in Figure 5.The graphs show that MHOD leads to slightly lowerresulting OTF values and time until a migration. TheSLA violation levels caused by the algorithms are shownin Table 4. It is clear that the MHOD algorithm substan-tially outperforms the OTFT and OTFTM algorithms inthe level of SLA violations leading to only 0.33% SLAviolations, whereas both OTFT and OTFTM cause thepercentage of SLA violations of 81.33%.

The obtained results can be explained by the fact thatboth OTFT and OTFTM are unable to capture the overallbehavior of the system over time and fail to meet theSLA requirements. In contrast, the MHOD algorithmleverages the knowledge of the past system states andby estimating future states avoids SLA violations. Forinstance, in a case of a steep rise in the load, OTFTand OTFTM react too late resulting in an SLA violation.In contrast, MHOD acts more intelligently and by pre-dicting the potential rise migrates a VM before an SLAviolation occurs. As a result, for the simulated PlanetLabworkload the MHOD algorithm keeps the level of SLAviolations at less than 0.5%.

TABLE 4SLA violations by OTFT, OTFTM and MHOD

OTF Parameter OTFT OTFTM MHOD

10% 100/100 100/100 0/10020% 100/100 100/100 1/10030% 44/100 44/100 0/100Overall 81.33% 81.33% 0.33%

TABLE 5Paired T-tests for comparing MHOD with OPT

OPT MHOD Difference p-value

OTF 18.31% 18.25% 0.06% (-0.03, 0.15) = 0.226Time 45,767 41,128 4,639 (3617, 5661) < 0.001

10.2.4 Comparison of MHOD with OPTFigures 3a and 3b include the results produced by theoptimal offline algorithm (OPT) for the same values ofthe OTF parameter set for the MHOD algorithm: 10%,20% and 30%. The results of paired t-tests comparing theperformance of OPT with MHOD are shown in Table 5.The results show that there is no statistically significantdifference in the resulting OTF value, which meansthat for the simulated PlanetLab workload the MHODalgorithm on average leads to approximately the samelevel of adherence to the QoS goal as the optimal offlinealgorithm. There is a statistically significant difference inthe time until a migration with the mean difference of4,639 with 95% CI: (3617, 5661). Relatively to OPT, thetime until a migration produced by the MHOD algo-rithm converts to 88.02% with 95% CI: (86.07%, 89.97%).This means that for the simulated PlanetLab workload,the MHOD algorithm on average delivers approximately88% of the performance of the optimal offline algorithm,which is highly efficient for an online algorithm.

11 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In this paper, we have introduced a Markov chainmodel and proposed a control algorithm for the prob-lem of host overload detection as a part of dynamicVM consolidation. The model allows a system admin-istrator to explicitly set a QoS goal in terms of theOTF parameter, which is a workload independent QoSmetric. For a known stationary workload and a givenstate configuration, the control policy obtained fromthe Markov model optimally solves the host overloaddetection problem in the online setting by maximizingthe mean inter-migration time, while meeting the QoSgoal. Using the Multisize Sliding Window workloadestimation approach, we have heuristically adapted themodel to handle unknown non-stationary workloads.We have also proposed an optimal offline algorithmfor the problem of host overload detection to evaluatethe efficiency of the MHOD algorithm. The conductedexperimental study has led to the following conclusions:

1) For the simulated PlanetLab workload, 3-state con-figurations of the MHOD algorithm on averageproduce approximately the same results as the([0, 100), 100) 2-state configuration of the MHODalgorithm; therefore, we prefer the 2-state configu-ration, as it requires simpler computations.

2) The 2-state configuration of the MHOD algorithmoutperforms the LRR algorithm, the best bench-mark algorithm, by producing on average approxi-mately 15.4% better time until a VM migration with


the same mean but much narrower spread of theresulting OTF value, leading to a better quality ofVM consolidation according to Section 3.

3) The MHOD algorithm substantially outperformsthe OTFT and OTFTM algorithms in the level ofSLA violations resulting in less than 0.5% SLA vio-lations compared to 81.33% of OTFT and OTFTM.

4) The MHOD algorithm on average provides ap-proximately the same resulting OTF value and ap-proximately 88% of the time until a VM migrationproduced by the optimal offline algorithm (OPT).

5) The MHOD algorithm enables explicit specificationof a desired QoS goal to be delivered by the systemthrough the OTF parameter, which is successfullymet by the resulting value of the OTF metric.

The introduced model is based on Markov chainsrequiring a few fundamental assumptions. It is assumedthat the workload satisfies the Markov property, whichmay not be true for all types of workloads. Carefulassessment of the assumptions discussed in Section 6.4is important in an investigation of the applicability ofthe proposed model to a particular system. However,our experimental study involving multiple mixed het-erogeneous real-world workloads has shown that thealgorithm is efficient in handling them. For the simulatedPlanetLab workload the MHOD algorithm performedwithin a 12% difference from the performance of theoptimal offline algorithm, which is highly efficient foran online algorithm. As a part of future work, we planto implement the MHOD algorithm as an extension ofthe VM manager within the OpenStack Cloud platform7

to evaluate the algorithm in a real system as a part ofenergy-efficient dynamic VM consolidation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Rodrigo N. Calheiros,Saurabh Garg, Sivaram Yoganathan, and Andrey Kanfrom the University of Melbourne, and Egor Gladkikhfrom G-SCOP Laboratory of Grenoble for their input andconstructive comments on improvements of the paper.

REFERENCES

[1] J. Koomey, Growth in data center electricity use 2005 to 2010.Oakland, CA: Analytics Press, 2011.

[2] Gartner, Inc., Gartner estimates ICT industry accounts for 2 percentof global CO2 emissions. Gartner Press Release (April 2007).

[3] R. Nathuji and K. Schwan, “Virtualpower: Coordinated powermanagement in virtualized enterprise systems,” ACM SIGOPSOperating Systems Review, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 265–278, 2007.

[4] A. Verma, P. Ahuja, and A. Neogi, “pMapper: Power and migra-tion cost aware application placement in virtualized systems,” inProc. of the 9th ACM/IFIP/USENIX Intl. Conf. on Middleware, 2008,pp. 243–264.

[5] X. Zhu, D. Young, B. J. Watson, Z. Wang, J. Rolia, S. Singhal,B. McKee, C. Hyser et al., “1000 Islands: Integrated capacity andworkload management for the next generation data center,” inProc. of the 5th Intl. Conf. on Autonomic Computing (ICAC), 2008,pp. 172–181.

7. The OpenStack Cloud platform. http://openstack.org/

[6] D. Gmach, J. Rolia, L. Cherkasova, G. Belrose, T. Turicchi, andA. Kemper, “An integrated approach to resource pool manage-ment: Policies, efficiency and quality metrics,” in Proc. of the 38thIEEE Intl. Conf. on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), 2008,pp. 326–335.

[7] D. Gmach, J. Rolia, L. Cherkasova, and A. Kemper, “Resourcepool management: Reactive versus proactive or lets be friends,”Computer Networks, vol. 53, no. 17, pp. 2905–2922, 2009.

[8] VMware Inc., “VMware distributed power management conceptsand use,” Information Guide, 2010.

[9] G. Jung, M. A. Hiltunen, K. R. Joshi, R. D. Schlichting, andC. Pu, “Mistral: Dynamically managing power, performance, andadaptation cost in Cloud infrastructures,” in Proc. of the 30th Intl.Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2010, pp. 62–73.

[10] W. Zheng, R. Bianchini, G. Janakiraman, J. Santos, and Y. Turner,“JustRunIt: Experiment-based management of virtualized datacenters,” in Proc. of the 2009 USENIX Annual Technical Conf., 2009,pp. 18–33.

[11] S. Kumar, V. Talwar, V. Kumar, P. Ranganathan, and K. Schwan,“vManage: Loosely coupled platform and virtualization manage-ment in data centers,” in Proc. of the 6th Intl. Conf. on AutonomicComputing (ICAC), 2009, pp. 127–136.

[12] B. Guenter, N. Jain, and C. Williams, “Managing cost, perfor-mance, and reliability tradeoffs for energy-aware server provi-sioning,” in Proc. of the 30st Annual IEEE Intl. Conf. on ComputerCommunications (INFOCOM), 2011, pp. 1332–1340.

[13] N. Bobroff, A. Kochut, and K. Beaty, “Dynamic placement ofvirtual machines for managing SLA violations,” in Proc. of the10th IFIP/IEEE Intl. Symp. on Integrated Network Management (IM),2007, pp. 119–128.

[14] A. Beloglazov, R. Buyya, Y. C. Lee, and A. Zomaya, “A taxonomyand survey of energy-efficient data centers and cloud computingsystems,” Advances in Computers, M. Zelkowitz (ed.), vol. 82, pp.47–111, 2011.

[15] A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya, “Optimal online deterministic al-gorithms and adaptive heuristics for energy and performanceefficient dynamic consolidation of virtual machines in clouddata centers,” Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience(CCPE), 2012, DOI: 10.1002/cpe.1867, (in press).

[16] S. O. Luiz, A. Perkusich, and A. M. N. Lima, “Multisize slidingwindow in workload estimation for dynamic power manage-ment,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 1625–1639, 2010.

[17] X. Wang and Y. Wang, “Coordinating power control and perfor-mance management for virtualized server clusters,” IEEE Trans-actions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (TPDS), vol. 22, no. 2,pp. 245–259, 2011.

[18] C. Weng, M. Li, Z. Wang, and X. Lu, “Automatic performancetuning for the virtualized cluster system,” in Proc. of the 29th Intl.Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2009, pp. 183–190.

[19] L. Benini, A. Bogliolo, G. A. Paleologo, and G. D. Micheli, “Policyoptimization for dynamic power management,” IEEE Transactionson Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 18,no. 6, pp. 813–833, 1999.

[20] Q. Zheng and B. Veeravalli, “Utilization-based pricing for powermanagement and profit optimization in data centers,” Journal ofParallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 27–34, 2011.

[21] S. Srikantaiah, A. Kansal, and F. Zhao, “Energy aware consolida-tion for cloud computing,” Cluster Computing, vol. 12, pp. 1–15,2009.

[22] A. Verma, G. Dasgupta, T. K. Nayak, P. De, and R. Kothari, “Serverworkload analysis for power minimization using consolidation,”in Proc. of the 2009 USENIX Annual Technical Conf., 2009, pp. 28–28.

[23] G. Bolch, Queueing networks and Markov chains: modeling andperformance evaluation with computer science applications. Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.

[24] E. Y. Chung, L. Benini, A. Bogliolo, Y. H. Lu, and G. D.Micheli, “Dynamic power management for nonstationary servicerequests,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 1345–1361, 2002.

[25] K. Mills, J. Filliben, and C. Dabrowski, “Comparing vm-placementalgorithms for on-demand clouds,” in Proc. of the 3rd IEEE Intl.Conf. on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), 2011,pp. 91–98.

[26] K. S. Park and V. S. Pai, “CoMon: a mostly-scalable monitoringsystem for PlanetLab,” ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review,vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 65–74, 2006.

Documents

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED … · Consolidation of Virtual Machines in Cloud Data Centers Under Quality of Service Constraints Anton Beloglazov and Rajkumar Buyya,