Files in this item



application/pdfRAHMAN-DISSERTATION-2016.pdf (3MB)
(no description provided)PDF


Title:Exploiting cost-performance tradeoffs for modern cloud systems
Author(s):Rahman, Muntasir Raihan
Director of Research:Gupta, Indranil
Doctoral Committee Chair(s):Gupta, Indranil
Doctoral Committee Member(s):Vaidya, Nitin H.; Parameswaran, Aditya; Griffith, Rean
Department / Program:Computer Science
Discipline:Computer Science
Degree Granting Institution:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Subject(s):Distributed Systems
Cloud Computing
NoSQL Storage Systems
Graph Processing
Abstract:The trade-off between cost and performance is a fundamental challenge for modern cloud systems. This thesis explores cost-performance tradeoffs for three types of systems that permeate today's clouds, namely (1) storage, (2) virtualization, and (3) computation. A distributed key-value storage system must choose between the cost of keeping replicas synchronized (consistency) and performance (latency) or read/write operations. A cloud-based disaster recovery system can reduce the cost of managing a group of VMs as a single unit for recovery by implementing this abstraction in software (instead of hardware) at the risk of impacting application availability performance. As another example, run-time performance of graph analytics jobs sharing a multi-tenant cluster can be made better by trading of the cost of replication of the input graph data-set stored in the associated distributed file system. Today cloud system providers have to manually tune the system to meet desired trade-offs. This can be challenging since the optimal trade-off between cost and performance may vary depending on network and workload conditions. Thus our hypothesis is that it is feasible to imbue a wide variety of cloud systems with adaptive and opportunistic mechanisms to efficiently navigate the cost-performance tradeoff space to meet desired tradeoffs. The types of cloud systems considered in this thesis include key-value stores, cloud-based disaster recovery systems, and multi-tenant graph computation engines. Our first contribution, PCAP is an adaptive distributed storage system. The foundation of the PCAP system is a probabilistic variation of the classical CAP theorem, which quantifies the (un-)achievable envelope of probabilistic consistency and latency under different network conditions characterized by a probabilistic partition model. Our PCAP system proposes adaptive mechanisms for tuning control knobs to meet desired consistency-latency tradeoffs expressed in terms in service-level agreements. Our second system, GeoPCAP is a geo-distributed extension of PCAP. In GeoPCAP, we propose generalized probabilistic composition rules for composing consistency-latency tradeoffs across geo-distributed instances of distributed key-value stores, each running on separate data-centers. GeoPCAP also includes a geo-distributed adaptive control system that adapts new controls knobs to meet SLAs across geo-distributed data-centers. Our third system, GCVM proposes a light-weight hypervisor-managed mechanism for taking crash consistent snapshots across VMs distributed over servers. This mechanism enables us to move the consistency group abstraction from hardware to software, and thus lowers reconfiguration cost while incurring modest VM pause times which impact application availability. Finally, our fourth contribution is a new opportunistic graph processing system called OPTiC for efficiently scheduling multiple graph analytics jobs sharing a multi-tenant cluster. By opportunistically creating at most 1 additional replica in the distributed file system (thus incurring cost), we show up to 50% reduction in median job completion time for graph processing jobs under realistic network and workload conditions. Thus with a modest increase in storage and bandwidth cost in disk, we can reduce job completion time (improve performance). For the first two systems (PCAP, and GeoPCAP), we exploit the cost-performance tradeoff space through efficient navigation of the tradeoff space to meet SLAs and perform close to the optimal tradeoff. For the third (GCVM) and fourth (OPTiC) systems, we move from one solution point to another solution point in the tradeoff space. For the last two systems, explicitly mapping out the tradeoff space allows us to consider new design tradeoffs for these systems.
Issue Date:2016-07-07
Rights Information:Copyright 2016 Muntasir Raihan Rahman
Date Available in IDEALS:2016-11-10
Date Deposited:2016-08

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Item Statistics