Over the last several decades computer architects have been phenomenally successful turning the transistor bounty provided by Moore's Law into chips with ever increasing single-threaded performance. During many of these successful years, however, many researchers paid scant attention to multiprocessor work. Now as vendors turn to multicore chips, researchers are reacting with more papers on multi-threaded systems. While this is good, we are concerned that further work on single-thread performance will be squashed. To help understand future high-level trade-offs, we develop a corollary to Amdahl's Law for multicore chips [Hill & Marty, IEEE Computer 2008]. It models fixed chip resources for alternative designs that use symmetric cores, asymmetric cores, or dynamic techniques that allow cores to work together on sequential execution. Our results encourage multicore designers to view performance of the entire chip rather than focus on core efficiencies. Moreover, we observe that obtaining optimal multicore performance requires further research BOTH in extracting more parallelism and making sequential cores faster. This talk is based on an HPCA 2008 keynote address. Speaker: Mark D. Hill Mark D. Hill (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill) is professor in both the computer sciences department and the electrical and computer engineering department at the University of Wisconsin--Madison, where he also co-leads the Wisconsin Multifacet (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/multifacet/) project with David Wood. His research interests include parallel computer system design, memory system design, computer simulation, and recently transactional memory. He earned a PhD from University of California, Berkeley. He is an ACM Fellow and a Fellow of the IEEE.
Paper: Understanding and Designing New Server Architectures for Emerging Warehouse-Computing Environments
Authors: Kevin Lim Parthasarathy Ranganathan Jichuan Chang Chandrakant Patel Trevor Mudge Steven Reinhardt This International Symposium on Computer Architecture paper seeks to understand and design next-generation servers for emerging "warehouse-computing" environments. We make two key contributions. First, we put together a detailed evaluation infrastructure including a new benchmark suite for warehouse-computing workloads, and detailed performance, cost, and power models, to quantitatively characterize bottlenecks. Second, we study a new solution that incorporates volume non-server-class components in novel packaging solutions, with memory sharing and flash-based disk caching. Our results show that this approach has promise, with a 2X improvement on average in performance-per-dollar for our benchmark suite.
Hi we are looking at sharding our existing Java/Oracle based application. We are looking to make the app servers able to process requests for multiple (any?) shard. The concern that has come up is the amount of memory that would be consumed by having so many connection pools on one app server. Additionally there is concern about having so many physical connections to the database server coming from all the various app servers that may talk to that particular shard. I was wondering if anyone else has dealt with this issue and how you resolved it? Thanks, Scott
Gregg Pollack has made 13 screen casts on how to scale rails:
Update: How do you design and handle peak load on the Cloud? by Cloudiquity. Gives a formula to try and predict and plan for peak load and talks about how GigaSpaces XAP, Scalr, RightScale and FreedomOSS can be used to handle peak load within EC2. Theo Schlossnagle, with his usual insight, talks about in Dissecting today's surges how the nature of internet traffic has evolved over time. Traffic now spikes like a heart attack, larger and more quickly than ever from traffic inflow sources like Digg and The New York Times. Theo relates how At least eight times in the past month, we've experienced from 100% to 1000% sudden increases in traffic across many of our clients and those spike can happen as quickly as 60 seconds. To me this sounds a lot like Punctuated equilibrium in evolution, a force that accounts for much creative growth in species... VMs don't spin up in less than 60 seconds so your ability to respond to such massive quick spikes is limited. This assumes of course that you've created an architecture that can automatically scale by adding VMs. Such elastic demand is usually met with a reservoir. You have more VMs in reserve to soak up temporary spikes. But who would do this in reality? Money would be going to non productive VMs, so you are likely to already have put those VMs into production. Interestingly, Theo ties handling sudden unexpected spikes back to performance. We are always told performance and scalability are separate issues. And while I accept this notionally, in my heart of hearts I think they have more in common than not and I think Theo nails why. A well performing system acts as a kind of reservoir for handling spikes before you can ever notice there's a spike. That gives you some time to add more resources to your site if a spike continues. With that reservoir you are just crushed. Theo gives four rules for for handling spikes: Be alert, Be prepared, Perform triage, and Be calm. Please see his site for more discussion of these rules. A few things that might help:
I try to group XTP in to two main groups, type 1 and 2 and then subdivide type 2 in to 2a and 2b. I describe how I do this grouping and then amplify it a little in the context of cloud services.
Update:Barbara Liskov’s Turing Award, and Byzantine Fault Tolerance. Henry Robinson has created an excellent series of articles on consensus protocols. We already covered his 2 Phase Commit article and he also has a 3 Phase Commit article showing how to handle 2PC under single node failures. But that is not enough! 3PC works well under node failures, but fails for network failures. So another consensus mechanism is needed that handles both network and node failures. And that's Paxos. Paxos correctly handles both types of failures, but it does this by becoming inaccessible if too many components fail. This is the "liveness" property of protocols. Paxos waits until the faults are fixed. Read queries can be handled, but updates will be blocked until the protocol thinks it can make forward progress. The liveness of Paxos is primarily dependent on network stability. In a distributed heterogeneous environment you are at risk of losing the ability to make updates. Users hate that. So when companies like Amazon do the seemingly insane thing of creating eventually consistent databases, it should be a little easier to understand now. Partitioning is required for scalability. Partitioning brings up these nasty consensus issues. Not being able to write under partition failures is unacceptable. Therefor create a system that can always write and work on consistency when all the downed partitions/networks are repaired.
Update 6: CARS = Cost Aware Runtimes and Services by William Louth.
Update 5: Damn You Google, Damn You Yahoo! Why D'Ya Do This to Us? Free accounts on a cloud platform are a constant drain of money.
Update 4: Caching becomes even more important in CPU based billing environments. Avoiding the CPU means saving money.
Update 3: An interesting simple example of this idea showed up on the Google AppEngine list. With one paging algorithm and one use of AJAX the yearly cost of the site was $1000. By changing those algorithms the site went under quota and became free again. This will make life a lot more interesting for developers.
Update 2: Business Model Influencing Software Architecture by Brandon Watson. The profitability of your project could disappear overnight on account of code behaving badly.
Update: Amazon adds Elastic Block Store at $0.10 per 1 million I/O requests. Now I need some cost minimization storage algorithms!
In the GAE Meetup yesterday a very interesting design rule came up: Design By Explicit Cost Model. A clumsy name I know, but it is explained like this:
If you are going to be charged for an operation GAE wants you to explicitly ask for it. This is why some automatic navigation between objects isn't provided because that will force an explicit query to be written. Writing an explicit query is a sort of EULA for being charged. Click OK in the form of a query and you've indicated that you are prepared to pay for a database operation.
Usually in programming the costs we talk about are time, space, latency, bandwidth, storage, person hours, etc. Listening to the Google folks talk about how one of their explicit design goals was to require programmers to be mindful of operations that will cost money made me realize in cloud programming cost will be another aspect of design we'll have to factor in.
Instead of asking for the Big O complexity of an algorithm we'll also have to ask for the Big $ (or Big Euro) notation so we can judge an algorithm by its cost against a particular cloud profile. Maybe something like $(CPU=1.3,DISK=3,IN-BANDWIDTH=2,OUT=BANDWIDTH=3, DB=10). You could look at the Big $ notation for algorithm and shake your head saying that approach will never work for GAE, but it could work for Amazon. Can we find a cheaper Big $?
Typically infrastructure costs are part of the capital budget. Someone ponies up for the hardware and software is then "free" until more infrastructure is needed. The dollar cost of software design isn't usually an explicit factor considered.
Now software design decisions are part of the operations budget. Every algorithm decision you make will have dollar cost associated with it and it may become more important to craft algorithms that minimize operations cost across a large number of resources (CPU, disk, bandwidth, etc) than it is to trade off our old friends space and time.
Different cloud architecture will force very different design decisions. Under Amazon CPU is cheap whereas under GAE CPU is a scarce commodity. Applications between the two niches will not be easily ported.
Don't be surprised if soon you go into an interview and they quiz you on Big $ notation and skip the dusty old relic that is Big O notation :-)
Lightcloud is a distributed and persistent key-value database from Plurk.com. Performance is said to be comparable to memcached. It's different than memcachedb because it scales out horizontally by adding new nodes. It's different than memcached because it persists to disk, it's not just a cache. Now you have one more option in the never ending quest to ditch the RDBMS. Their website does a nice job explaining the system:
Built on Tokyo Tyrant. One of the fastest key-value databases [benchmark]. Tokyo Tyrant has been in development for many years and is used in production by Plurk.com, mixi.jp and scribd.com (to name a few)... Great performance (comparable to memcached!) Can store millions of keys on very few servers - tested in production Scale out by just adding nodes Nodes are replicated via master-master replication. Automatic failover and load balancing is supported from the start Ability to script and extend using Lua. Included extensions are incr and a fixed list Hot backups and restore: Take backups and restore servers without shutting them down LightCloud manager can control nodes, take backups and give you a status on how your nodes are doing Very small foot print (lightcloud client is around ~500 lines and manager about ~400) Python only, but LightCloud should be easy to port to other languages
Update: HostedFTP.com - Amazon S3 Performance Report. How fast is S3? Based on their own study HostedFTP.com has found: 10 to 12 MB/second when storing and receiving files and 140 ms per file stored as a fixed overhead cost. Update: A Quantitative Comparison of Rackspace and Amazon Cloud Storage Solutions. S3 isn't the only cloud storage service out there. Mosso is saying they can save you so money while offering support. There are number of scenarios in their paper, but For 5TB of cloud storage Mosso will save you 17% over S3 without support and 42% with support. For their CDN on a Global test Mosso says the average response time is 333ms for CloudFront vs. 107ms for Cloud Files which means globally, Cloud Files is 3.1 times or 211% faster than CloudFront. Amazon S3 is storage for the Internet. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier for developers. This service allows you to link directly to files at a cost of 15 cents per GB of storage, and 20 cents per GB transfer.