skip to main content
10.1145/2797022.2797029acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesapsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Containing the Hype

Published:27 July 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Containers, or OS-based virtualization, have seen a recent resurgence in deployment. The term "container" is nearly synonymous with "lightweight virtualization", despite a remarkable dearth of careful measurements supporting this notion. This paper contributes comparative measurements and analysis of both containers and hardware virtual machines where the functionality of both technologies intersects. This paper focuses on two important issues for cloud computing: density (guests per physical host) and start-up latency (for responding to load spikes). We conclude that the overall density is highly dependent on the most demanded resource. In many dimensions there are no significant differences, and in other dimensions VMs have significantly higher overheads. A particular contribution is the first detailed analysis of the biggest difference---memory footprint---and opportunities to significantly reduce this overhead.

References

  1. KVM and Docker LXC Benchmarking with OpenStack. http://bodenr.blogspot.com/2014/05/kvm-and-docker-lxc-benchmarking-with.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Linux Containers. https://linuxcontainers.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. O. Agesen, J. Mattson, R. Rugina, and J. Sheldon. Software Techniques for Avoiding Hardware Virtualization Exits. In Proceedings of the 2012 USENIX Conference on Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC'12, pages 35--35, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2012. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Amit, M. Ben-Yehuda, D. Tsafrir, and A. Schuster. vIOMMU: Efficient IOMMU Emulation. In Proceedings of the 2011 USENIX Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference, USENIX ATC'11, pages 6--6, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2011. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Aufs. http://aufs.sourceforge.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Belay, G. Prekas, A. Klimovic, S. Grossman, C. Kozyrakis, and E. Bugnion. IX: A Protected Dataplane Operating System for High Throughput and Low Latency. In 11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 14), pages 49--65, Broomfield, CO, Oct. 2014. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Bhattiprolu, E. W. Biederman, S. Hallyn, and D. Lezcano. Virtual servers and checkpoint/restart in mainstream Linux. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 42:104--113, July 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Bila, E. J. Wright, E. D. Lara, K. Joshi, H. A. Lagar-Cavilla, E. Park, A. Goel, M. Hiltunen, and M. Satyanarayanan. Energy-Oriented Partial Desktop Virtual Machine Migration. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 33(1):2:1--2:51, Mar. 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. E. Bugnion, S. Devine, K. Govil, and M. Rosenblum. Disco: Running commodity operating systems on scalable multiprocessors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 15(4):412--447, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Canonical. LXD crushes KVM in density and speed. https://insights.ubuntu.com/2015/05/18/lxd-crushes-kvm-in-density-and-speed/, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. W. Felter, A. Ferreira, R. Rajamony, and J. Rubio. An Updated Performance Comparison of Virtual Machines and Linux Containers. Technical Report RC25482(AUS1407001), IBM Research Division, 11501 Burnet Road, Austin, TX, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Filebench. http://sourceforge.net/projects/filebench/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. B. Ford and R. Cox. Vx32: Lightweight user-level sandboxing on the x86. In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 293--306, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Gordon, N. Amit, N. Har'El, M. Ben-Yehuda, A. Landau, A. Schuster, and D. Tsafrir. ELI: Bare-metal Performance for I/O Virtualization. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, ASPLOS XVII, pages 411--422, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T. Gröninger. On Statistical Properties of Duplicate Memory Pages. Diploma thesis, System Architecture Group, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, Oct.31 2013. http://os.itec.kit.edu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. D. Gupta, S. Lee, M. Vrable, S. Savage, A. C. Snoeren, G. Varghese, G. M. Voelker, and A. Vahdat. Difference engine: Harnessing memory redundancy in virtual machines. Communications of the ACM, 53(10):85--93, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. R. Kapoor, G. Porter, M. Tewari, G. M. Voelker, and A. Vahdat. Chronos: Predictable Low Latency for Data Center Applications. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, SoCC '12, pages 9:1--9:14, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kernel-based virtual machine. http://www.linux-kvm.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. H. A. Lagar-Cavilla, J. A. Whitney, A. M. Scannell, P. Patchin, S. M. Rumble, E. De Lara, M. Brudno, and M. Satyanarayanan. SnowFlock: Rapid Virtual Machine Cloning for Cloud Computing. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM European conference on Computer systems, pages 1--12. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Liu, W. Huang, B. Abali, and D. K. Panda. High Performance VMM-bypass I/O in Virtual Machines. In Proceedings of the Conference on USENIX '06 Annual Technical Conference, ATEC '06, pages 3--3, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Madhavapeddy, R. Mortier, C. Rotsos, D. Scott, B. Singh, T. Gazagnaire, S. Smith, S. Hand, and J. Crowcroft. Unikernels: Library operating systems for the cloud. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. N. Matthews, W. Hu, M. Hapuarachchi, T. Deshane, D. Dimatos, G. Hamilton, M. McCabe, and J. Owens. Quantifying the Performance Isolation Properties of Virtualization Systems. In Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop on Experimental Computer Science, ExpCS '07, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Mauro and R. McDougall. Solaris Internals (2Nd Edition). Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. M. K. McKusick and G. V. Neville-Neil. The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System. Pearson Education, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. Meisner, J. Wu, and T. Wenisch. BigHouse: A simulation infrastructure for data center systems. In Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), 2012 IEEE International Symposium on, pages 35--45, April 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. C. Metz. Google Embraces Docker, the Next Big Thing in Cloud Computing. WIRED, June 2014. http://www.wired.com/2014/06/eric-brewer-google-docker/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. K. Miller. Efficient Main Memory Deduplication Through Cross Layer Integration. PhD thesis, Karlsruhe, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Diss., 2014, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. K. Miller, F. Franz, T. Groeninger, M. Rittinghaus, M. Hillenbrand, and F. Bellosa. KSM++: Using I/O-based hints to make memory-deduplication scanners more efficient. In Proceedings of the ASPLOS Workshop on Runtime Environments, Systems, Layering and Virtualized Environments (RESoLVE'12), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. K. Miller, F. Franz, M. Rittinghaus, M. Hillenbrand, and F. Bellosa. XLH: More Effective Memory Deduplication Scanners Through Cross-layer Hints. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, pages 279--290, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. D. G. Murray, H. Steven, and M. A. Fetterman. Satori: Enlightened page sharing. In In Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. Citeseer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. NIST. National Vulnerability Database. http://nvd.nist.gov/, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. S. Peter, J. Li, I. Zhang, D. R. K. Ports, D. Woos, A. Krishnamurthy, T. Anderson, and T. Roscoe. Arrakis: The Operating System is the Control Plane. In 11th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 14), pages 1--16, Broomfield, CO, Oct. 2014. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. D. E. Porter, S. Boyd-Wickizer, J. Howell, R. Olinsky, and G. Hunt. Rethinking the library OS from the top down. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 291--304, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. D. Price and A. Tucker. Solaris Zones: Operating system support for consolidating commercial workloads. In Proceedings of the Large Installation System Administration Conference (LISA), pages 241--254, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. N. Regola and J.-C. Ducom. Recommendations for Virtualization Technologies in High Performance Computing. In Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on, pages 409--416, Nov 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. P. Sharma and P. Kulkarni. Singleton: system-wide page deduplication in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 21st international symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing, pages 15--26. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. S. Soltesz, H. Pötzl, M. E. Fiuczynski, A. Bavier, and L. Peterson. Container-based Operating System Virtualization: A Scalable, High-performance Alternative to Hypervisors. In Proceedings of the 2Nd ACM SIGOPS/EuroSys European Conference on Computer Systems 2007, EuroSys '07, pages 275--287, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. M. Stokely and C. Lee. The FreeBSD Handbook, 3rd Edition, Vol 1: Users's Guide, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. C.-C. Tsai, K. S. Arora, N. Bandi, B. Jain, W. Jannen, J. John, H. A. Kalodner, V. Kulkarni, D. Oliveira, and D. E. Porter. Cooperation and Security Isolation of Library OSes for Multi-Process Applications. In Proceedings of the ACM European Conference on Computer Systems (EuroSys), pages 9:1--9:14, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. C.-C. Tu, M. Ferdman, C.-t. Lee, and T.-c. Chiueh. A Comprehensive Implementation and Evaluation of Direct Interrupt Delivery. In 11th ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS International Conference on Virtual Execution Environment (VEE), VEE '15. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. C. A. Waldspurger. Memory resource management in vmware esx server. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 36(SI):181--194, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. M. G. Xavier, M. V. Neves, F. D. Rossi, T. C. Ferreto, T. Lange, and C. A. F. De Rose. Performance Evaluation of Container-Based Virtualization for High Performance Computing Environments. In Proceedings of the 2013 21st Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Processing, PDP '13, pages 233--240, Washington, DC, USA, 2013. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. B. Yee, D. Sehr, G. Dardyk, J. B. Chen, R. Muth, T. Ormandy, S. Okasaka, N. Narula, and N. Fullagar. Native client: A sandbox for portable, untrusted x86 native code. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Containing the Hype

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      APSys '15: Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Systems
      July 2015
      152 pages
      ISBN:9781450335546
      DOI:10.1145/2797022

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 July 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      APSys '15 Paper Acceptance Rate20of68submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate149of386submissions,39%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader