Download - Container-based OS Virtualization
![Page 1: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Container-based OS Virtualization
A Scalable, High-performance Alternative to Hypervisors
Stephen Soltesz, Herbert Pötzl, Marc Fiuczynski, Andy Bavier & Larry Peterson
![Page 2: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
PlanetLab Usage
Typical Node (2.4GHz, 1GB, 100-200GB disk) ~250-300 configured VM file systems on disk 40-90 resident VMs with ≥ 1 process 5-20 active VMs using CPU
80
60
40
0
20
100Number of Resident VMs
2520151050
Number of Active VMs30
![Page 3: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
What is the Trade-Off?
![Page 4: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Usage Scenarios Efficiency -> Performance
IT Data Centers Grid, HPC Clusters
Efficiency -> Low-overhead Linux-based Phone OLPC Laptops Enhanced WIFI Routers
Efficiency -> Scalability Web Hosting Amazon EC2 PlanetLab, VINI Network Research
![Page 5: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Presentation Outline
Why Container-based OS Virtualization? High-level Design
Hypervisor Container-based OS
Guest VM Environment Xen VServer
Evaluation
![Page 6: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Hypervisor Design
DriverDomain
![Page 7: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Container Design
VM1 VM2 VMn
![Page 8: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Feature Comparison
Hypervisor Container
Multiple Kernels X
Load Arbitrary Modules X
Local Administration All
Live Migration OpenVZ
Live System Update X Zap
![Page 9: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Presentation Outline
Why Container-based OS Virtualization? High-level Design
Hypervisor Container-based OS
Guest VM Environment Xen VServer
Evaluation
![Page 10: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Xen 3.0 Guest VM
I/O Path•Process to Guest OS•Guest OS to IDD
Resource Control•Driver Domain
•Map Virtual Devices•CFQ for disk•HTB for network
Security Isolation•Hypervisor•Access Physical Level
•PCI Address•Virtual Memory
Resource Control•Hypervisor
•Allocate Resources•Schedule VMs
Schedules All VMs•Guest VM & IDD Scheduled•Two levels scheduling in Guest
![Page 11: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
VServer 2.0 Guest VM
Security Isolation•Access to Logical Objects
•Context ID Filter•User IDs•SHM & IPC address•File system Barriers
Resource Control•Map Container to
•HTB for Network•CFQ for Disk
•Logical Limits•Processes•Open FD•Memory Locks
Optimizations•File-level Copy-on-write
I/O Path•Process to COS
Scheduler•Single Level•Token Bucket Filterpreserves O(1) scheduler
![Page 12: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
VServer Implementation
8,700 lines across 350+ files Leverage existing implementations Applied to Logical Resources
Not architecture specific MIPS, ARM, SPARC, etc.. Low Overhead
![Page 13: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Guest Comparison
Xen 3.0 VServer 2.0Level of Virtualization Physical LogicalResource Control HTB, CFQ, etc HTB, CFQ, etcScheduler 2-levels: Hyp + Guest 1-levelI/O Path 3 transfers 2 transfer
![Page 14: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Configuration
Kernel Linux VServer 2.0 Xen 3.0.4
Version 2.6.16.33Distribution Fedora Core 5File system Independent LVM PartitionsScheduler O(1) O(1)+TBF Credit
Machine HP DL360 G4pCPU 2 x 1 core Xeon with 2MB L2Network 2 Port GbEMemory 4 GB
Hardware
System Software
![Page 15: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Network I/O: TCP Receive
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
71.9% 70.3% 100.0% 134.8% 77.8% 77.6% 173.1%
Linux VServer Xen3 oneCPU
Xen3 twoCPUs
Linux VServer Xen3
IPerf - UP IPerf - SMP
Normalized Throughput
CPU %
![Page 16: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Disk I/O: Write
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
DD DBench DD DBench
UP SMP
Performance Relative to Linux-UP
Linux VServer Xen
![Page 17: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
CPU & Memory Performance
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Kernel Compile OSDB IR Kernel Compile OSDB IR
UP SMP
Performance Relative to Linux-UP
Linux VServer Xen
![Page 18: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Performance at Scale - UP
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 4 8 1 2 4 8
VServer Xen3
OSDB IR + CrossSection Test - UP
Avg. Aggregate Throughput (tup/sec)
![Page 19: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Performance at Scale - SMP
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 4 8 1 2 4 8
VServer Xen3
OSDB IR + CrossSection Test - SMP
Avg. Aggregate Throughput (tup/sec)
![Page 20: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Conclusion Virtualization for Manageability
Variety of current Implementations No one-size-fits-all solution
Hypervisors offer compelling features Containers are built on well understood technology Isolation & Efficiency Trade-off
When trade-off is possible… VServer as alternative Native Efficiency I/O Low-Overhead Implementation More Scalable
![Page 21: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Questions
Thank you
![Page 22: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
![Page 23: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Speculation on Future Trends
Future improvements to both platforms COS-Linux + Linux-as-Hypervisor (KVM)
![Page 24: Container-based OS Virtualization](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062500/568159a6550346895dc70943/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Conclusion
Performance, Lower-Overhead, Scalability