The assessment of benchmarks executed on bare-metal and using para-virtualization

A full assessment of para-­virtualization is important, because without knowledge about the various overheads, users can not understand whether using virtualization is a good idea or not. In this paper we are very interested in assessing the overheads of running various benchmarks on bare-­‐metal, as well as on para-­‐virtualization. The idea is to see what the overheads of para-­‐ virtualization are, as well as looking at the overheads of turning on monitoring and logging. The knowledge from assessing various benchmarks on these different systems will help a range of users understand the use of virtualization systems. In this paper we assess the overheads of using Xen, VMware, KVM and Citrix, see Table 1. These different virtualization systems are used extensively by cloud-­‐users. We are using various Netlib1 benchmarks, which have been developed by the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). In order to assess these virtualization systems, we run the benchmarks on bare-­‐metal, then on the para-­‐virtualization, and finally we turn on monitoring and logging. The later is important as users are interested in Service Level Agreements (SLAs) used by the Cloud providers, and the use of logging is a means of assessing the services bought and used from commercial providers. In this paper we assess the virtualization systems on three different systems. We use the Thamesblue supercomputer, the Hactar cluster and IBM JS20 blade server (see Table 2), which are all servers available at the University of Reading. A functional virtualization system is multi-­‐layered and is driven by the privileged components. Virtualization systems can host multiple guest operating systems, which run on its own domain, and the system schedules virtual CPUs and memory within each Virtual Machines (VM) to make the best use of the available resources. The guest-­‐operating system schedules each application accordingly. You can deploy virtualization as full virtualization or para-­‐virtualization. Full virtualization provides a total abstraction of the underlying physical system and creates a new virtual system, where the guest operating systems can run. No modifications are needed in the guest OS or application, e.g. the guest OS or application is not aware of the virtualized environment and runs normally. Para-­‐virualization requires user modification of the guest operating systems, which runs on the virtual machines, e.g. these guest operating systems are aware that they are running on a virtual machine, and provide near-­‐native performance. You can deploy both para-­‐virtualization and full virtualization across various virtualized systems. Para-­‐virtualization is an OS-­‐assisted virtualization; where some modifications are made in the guest operating system to enable better performance. In this kind of virtualization, the guest operating system is aware of the fact that it is running on the virtualized hardware and not on the bare hardware. In para-­‐virtualization, the device drivers in the guest operating system coordinate the device drivers of host operating system and reduce the performance overheads. The use of para-­‐virtualization [0] is intended to avoid the bottleneck associated with slow hardware interrupts that exist when full virtualization is employed. It has revealed [0] that para-­‐ virtualization does not impose significant performance overhead in high performance computing, and this in turn this has implications for the use of cloud computing for hosting HPC applications. The “apparent” improvement in virtualization has led us to formulate the hypothesis that certain classes of HPC applications should be able to execute in a cloud environment, with minimal performance degradation. In order to support this hypothesis, first it is necessary to define exactly what is meant by a “class” of application, and secondly it will be necessary to observe application performance, both within a virtual machine and when executing on bare hardware. A further potential complication is associated with the need for Cloud service providers to support Service Level Agreements (SLA), so that system utilisation can be audited.

Implementing intelligent cores using processor virtualization for fault tolerance

Processor virtualization for process migration in distributed parallel computing systems has formed a significant component of research on load balancing. In contrast, the potential of processor virtualization for fault tolerance has been addressed minimally. The work reported in this paper is motivated towards extending concepts of processor virtualization towards ‘intelligent cores’ as a means to achieve fault tolerance in distributed parallel computing systems. Intelligent cores are an abstraction of the hardware processing cores, with the incorporation of cognitive capabilities, on which parallel tasks can be executed and migrated. When a processing core executing a task is predicted to fail the task being executed is proactively transferred onto another core. A parallel reduction algorithm incorporating concepts of intelligent cores is implemented on a computer cluster using Adaptive MPI and Charm ++. Preliminary results confirm the feasibility of the approach.

What is the right balance for performance and isolation with virtualization in HPC?

The use of virtualization in high-performance computing (HPC) has been suggested as a means to provide tailored services and added functionality that many users expect from full-featured Linux cluster environments. The use of virtual machines in HPC can offer several benefits, but maintaining performance is a crucial factor. In some instances the performance criteria are placed above the isolation properties. This selective relaxation of isolation for performance is an important characteristic when considering resilience for HPC environments that employ virtualization. In this paper we consider some of the factors associated with balancing performance and isolation in configurations that employ virtual machines. In this context, we propose a classification of errors based on the concept of “error zones”, as well as a detailed analysis of the trade-offs between resilience and performance based on the level of isolation provided by virtualization solutions. Finally, a set of experiments are performed using different virtualization solutions to elucidate the discussion.

Virtualization for cost-effective teaching of assembly language programming

A virtual system that emulates an ARM-based processor machine has been created to replace a traditional hardware-based system for teaching assembly language. The proposed virtual system integrates, in a single environment, all the development tools necessary to deliver introductory or advanced courses on modern assembly language programming. The virtual system runs a Linux operating system in either a graphical or console mode on a Windows or Linux host machine. No software licenses or extra hardware are required to use the virtual system, thus students are free to carry their own ARM emulator with them on a USB memory stick. Institutions adopting this, or a similar virtual system, can also benefit by reducing capital investment in hardware-based development kits and enable distance learning courses.

Methodology To model the energy and greenhouse gas emissions of electronic software distributions

A new electronic software distribution (ESD) life cycle analysis (LCA)methodology and model structure were constructed to calculate energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In order to counteract the use of high level, top-down modeling efforts, and to increase result accuracy, a focus upon device details and data routes was taken. In order to compare ESD to a relevant physical distribution alternative,physical model boundaries and variables were described. The methodology was compiled from the analysis and operational data of a major online store which provides ESD and physical distribution options. The ESD method included the calculation of power consumption of data center server and networking devices. An in-depth method to calculate server efficiency and utilization was also included to account for virtualization and server efficiency features. Internet transfer power consumption was analyzed taking into account the number of data hops and networking devices used. The power consumed by online browsing and downloading was also factored into the model. The embedded CO2e of server and networking devices was proportioned to each ESD process. Three U.K.-based ESD scenarios were analyzed using the model which revealed potential CO2e savings of 83% when ESD was used over physical distribution. Results also highlighted the importance of server efficiency and utilization methods.