Size-based scheduling vs fairness for datacenter flows: a queuing perspective
Pages 2 - 10
Abstract
Contrary to the conclusions of a recent body of work where approximate shortest remaining processing time first (SRPT) flow scheduling is advocated for datacenter networks, this paper aims to demonstrate that imposing fairness remains a preferable objective. We evaluate abstract queuing models by analysis and simulation to illustrate the non-optimality of SRPT under the reasonable assumptions that datacenter source-destination flows occur in batches and bursts and not, as usually assumed, individually at the instants of a Poisson process. Results for these models have significant implications for the design of bandwidth sharing strategies for datacenter networks. In particular, we propose a novel "virtual fair scheduling" algorithm that enforces fairness between batches and is arguably simple enough to be implemented in high speed devices.
References
[1]
C. L. Abad, N. Roberts, Y. Lu, and R. H. Campbell. A storage-centric analysis of mapreduce workloads: File popularity, temporal locality and arrival patterns. In IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC), pages 100--109, 2012.
[2]
D. Abts and B. Felderman. A guided tour of data-center networking. Communications of the ACM, 55(6):44--51, 2012.
[3]
V. Addanki, L. Linguaglossa, J. Roberts, and D. Rossi. Controlling software router resource sharing by fair packet dropping. In Proceedings of IFIP Networking, 2018.
[4]
M. Alizadeh, A. Greenberg, D. A. Maltz, J. Padhye, P. Patel, B. Prabhakar, S. Sengupta, and M. Sridharan. Data center TCP (DCTCP). In Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2010, pages 63--74, 2010.
[5]
M. Alizadeh, S. Yang, M. Sharif, S. Katti, N. McKeown, B. Prabhakar, and S. Shenker. pFabric: Minimal near-optimal datacenter transport. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013, pages 435--446, 2013.
[6]
B. Atikoglu, Y. Xu, E. Frachtenberg, S. Jiang, and M. Paleczny. Workload analysis of a large-scale key-value store. In Proceedings of SIGMETRICS/PERFORMANCE, pages 53--64, 2012.
[7]
K. Avrachenkov, U. Ayesta, and P. Brown. Batch arrival processor-sharing with application to multi-level processor-sharing scheduling. Queueing Syst. Theory Appl., 50(4):459--480, Aug. 2005.
[8]
N. Bansal. Analysis of the M/G/1 processor-sharing queue with bulk arrivals. Operations Research Letters, 31(5):401--405, 2003.
[9]
C. Benet, A. Kassler, G. Antichi, T. Benson, and G. Pongracz. Providing in-network support to coflow scheduling. In IEEE NetSoft, 2021.
[10]
T. Benson, A. Akella, and D. A. Maltz. Network traffic characteristics of data centers in the wild. In Proceedings of IMC âAZ´10, pages 267--280, 2010.
[11]
M. Chowdhury and I. Stoica. Coflow: A networking abstraction for cluster applications. In Proceedings of HotNets-XI, pages 31--36, 2012.
[12]
M. Chowdhury, Y. Zhong, and I. Stoica. Efficient coflow scheduling with Varys. In Proceedings of SIGCOMM '14, pages 443--454, 2014.
[13]
F. R. Dogar, T. Karagiannis, H. Ballani, and A. Rowstron. Decentralized task-aware scheduling for data center networks. In Proceedings of SIGCOMM '14, pages 431--442, 2014.
[14]
P. X. Gao, A. Narayan, G. Kumar, R. Agarwal, S. Ratnasamy, and S. Shenker. pHost: Distributed near-optimal datacenter transport over commodity network fabric. In Proceedings of CoNEXT '15, 2015.
[15]
M. E. Gebrehiwot, S. Aalto, and P. Lassila. Energy-aware SRPT server with batch arrivals. Perform. Eval., 115(C):92--107, Oct. 2017.
[16]
P. Goyal, P. Shah, N. K. Sharma, M. Alizadeh, and T. E. Anderson. Backpressure flow control. In Proceedings of the 2019 Workshop on Buffer Sizing, 2019.
[17]
P. Goyal, P. Shah, K. Zhao, G. Nikolaidis, M. Alizadeh, and T. E. Anderson. Backpressure flow control. In Proceedings of NSDI 22, pages 779--805, 2022.
[18]
P. Goyal, H. Vin, and H. Cheng. Start-time fair queueing: a scheduling algorithm for integrated services packet switching networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5(5):690--704, 1997.
[19]
F. Guillemin, A. Simonian, R. Nasri, and V. Q. Rodriguez. 9 Asymptotic analysis of the sojourn time of a batch in an M[X]/M/1 processor sharing queue. arXiv, 2021.
[20]
T. Hoeiland-Joergensen, P. McKenney, D. Taht, J. Gettys, and E. Dumazet. The Flow Queue CoDel Packet Scheduler and Active Queue Management Algorithm. RFC 8290, Jan. 2018.
[21]
F. P. Kelly. Reversibility and Stochastic Networks. Wiley, 1979.
[22]
L. Kleinrock, R. Muntz, and E. Rodemich. The processor-sharing queueing model for time-shared systems with bulk arrivals. Networks, 1:1--13, 1971.
[23]
A. Kortebi, L. Muscariello, S. Oueslati, and J. Roberts. Evaluating the number of active flows in a scheduler realizing fair statistical bandwidth sharing. In ACM SIGMETRICS, 2005.
[24]
A. Kortebi, S. Oueslati, and J. Roberts. Implicit service differentiation using deficit round robin. In Proceedings of ITC19, 2005.
[25]
G. Kumar, N. Dukkipati, K. Jang, H. M. G. Wassel, X. Wu, B. Montazeri, Y. Wang, K. Springborn, C. Alfeld, M. Ryan, D. Wetherall, and A. Vahdat. Swift: Delay is simple and effective for congestion control in the datacenter. In Proceedings of SIGCOMM '20, pages 514--528, 2020.
[26]
Y. Li, R. Miao, H. H. Liu, Y. Zhuang, F. Feng, L. Tang, Z. Cao, M. Zhang, F. Kelly, M. Alizadeh, and M. Yu. HPCC: High precision congestion control. In Proceedings of SIGCOMM '19, pages 44--58, 2019.
[27]
B. Montazeri, Y. Li, M. Alizadeh, and J. Ousterhout. Homa: A receiver-driven low-latency transport protocol using network priorities. In Proceedings of Sigcomm, pages 221--235, 2018.
[28]
A. Mushtaq, R. Mittal, J. McCauley, M. Alizadeh, S. Ratnasamy, and S. Shenker. Datacenter congestion control: Identifying what is essential and making it practical. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 49(3):32--38, Nov. 2019.
[29]
R. Nishtala, H. Fugal, S. Grimm, M. Kwiatkowski, H. Lee, H. C. Li, R. McElroy, M. Paleczny, D. Peek, P. Saab, D. Stafford, T. Tung, and V. Venkataramani. Scaling memcache at Facebook. In Proceedings of NSDI '13, pages 385--398, 2013.
[30]
K. Ousterhout, R. Rasti, S. Ratnasamy, S. Shenker, and B.-G. Chun. Making sense of performance in data analytics frameworks. In Proceedings of NSDI'15, pages 293--307, 2015.
[31]
R. Pan, L. Breslau, B. Prabhakar, and S. Shenker. Approximate fairness through differential dropping. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 33(2):23--39, Apr. 2003.
[32]
L. Schrage. A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research, 16(3):687--690, 1968.
[33]
B. Schroeder, A. Wierman, and M. Harchol-Balter. Open versus closed: A cautionary tale. In NSDI, page 18, 2006.
[34]
N. K. Sharma, A. Kaufmann, T. Anderson, A. Krishnamurthy, J. Nelson, and S. Peter. Evaluating the power of flexible packet processing for network resource allocation. In NSDI 17, pages 67--82, 2017.
[35]
M. Shreedhar and G. Varghese. Efficient fair queuing using deficit round-robin. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 4(3):375--385, 1996.
[36]
A. Wierman. Scheduling for today's computer systems: bridging theory and practice. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2007. 10
Index Terms
- Size-based scheduling vs fairness for datacenter flows: a queuing perspective
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Fairness considerations of scheduling in multi-server and multi-queue systems
valuetools '06: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Performance evaluation methodolgies and toolsMulti-server and multi-queue architectures are common mechanisms used in a large variety of applications (call centers, Web services, computer systems). One of the major motivations behind common queue operation strategies is to grant fair service to ...
A tandem retrial queueing system with two Markovian flows and reservation of channels
We consider a tandem queueing system with single-server first station and multi-server second station. The input flow at Station 1 is described by the BMAP (batch Markovian arrival process). Customers from this flow are considered as non-priority ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2022 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 30 August 2022
Published in SIGMETRICS Volume 50, Issue 2
Check for updates
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 70Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)14
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 09 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in