skip to main content
10.1145/2806777.2806942acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

dJay: enabling high-density multi-tenancy for cloud gaming servers with dynamic cost-benefit GPU load balancing

Published:27 August 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

In cloud gaming, servers perform remote rendering on behalf of thin clients. Such a server must deliver sufficient frame rate (at least 30fps) to each of its clients. At the same time, each client desires an immersive experience, and therefore the server should also provide the best graphics quality possible to each client. Statically provisioning time slices of the server GPU for each client suffers from severe underutilization because clients can come and go, and scenes that the clients need rendered can vary greatly in terms of GPU resource usage over time.

In this work, we present dJay, a utility-maximizing cloud gaming server that dynamically tunes client GPU rendering workloads in order to 1) ensure all clients get satisfactory frame rate, and 2) provide the best possible graphics quality across clients. To accomplish this, we develop three main components. First, we build an online profiler that collects key cost and benefit data, and distills the data into a reusable regression model. Second, we build an online utility optimizer that uses the regression model to tune GPU workloads for better graphics quality. The optimizer solves the Multiple Choice Knapsack problem. We demonstrate dJay on two high quality commercial games, Doom 3 and Fable 3. Our results show that when compared to a static configuration, we can respond much better to peaks and troughs, achieving up to four times the multi-tenant density on a single server while offering clients the best possible graphics quality.

References

  1. Amazon appstream. http://aws.amazon.com/appstream.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lxc. http://linuxcontainers.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Nvidia grid cloud gaming. http://shield.nvidia.com/grid.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sony playstation now streaming. http://us.playstation.com/playstationnow.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Adya, J. Dunagan, and A. Wolman. Centrifuge: Integrated lease management and partitioning for cloud services. In NSDI, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Armbrust, A. Fox, R. Griffith, A. D. Joseph, R. Katz, A. Konwinski, G. Lee, D. Patterson, A. Rabkin, I. Stoica, and M. Zaharia. A view of cloud computing. Commun. ACM, 53(4):50--58, Apr. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Claypool, K. Claypool, and F. Damaa. The effects of frame rate and resolution on users playing first person shooter games, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. E. Cuervo, A. Wolman, L. P. Cox, K. Lebeck, A. Razeen, S. Saroiu, and M. Musuvathi. Kahawai: High-quality mobile gaming using gpu offload. In MobiSys, May 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. G. DeCandia, D. Hastorun, M. Jampani, G. Kakulapati, A. Lakshman, A. Pilchin, S. Sivasubramanian, P. Vosshall, and W. Vogels. Dynamo: Amazon's highly available key-value store. In SOSP, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Deloura. Game Programming Gems. Charles River Media, Inc., Rockland, MA, USA, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Dowty and J. Sugerman. Gpu virtualization on vmware's hosted i/o architecture. In WIOV, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Grandl, G. Ananthanarayanan, S. Kandula, S. Rao, and A. Akella. Multi-resource packing for cluster schedulers. In SIGCOMM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Hollister. Onlive lost: how the paradise of streaming games was undone by one man's ego. http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3274739/onlive-report, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. G. Humphreys, M. Houston, R. Ng, R. Frank, S. Ahern, P. D. Kirchner, and J. T. Klosowski. Chromium: A stream-processing framework for interactive rendering on clusters. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH '02, pages 693--702, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Isard, V. Prabhakaran, J. Currey, U. Wieder, K. Talwar, and A. Goldberg. Quincy: Fair scheduling for distributed computing clusters. In SOSP, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Karger, A. Sherman, A. Berkheimer, B. Bogstad, R. Dhanidina, K. Iwamoto, B. Kim, L. Matkins, and Y. Yerushalmi. Web caching with consistent hashing. In WWW, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. H. Kellerer, U. Pferschy, and D. Pisinger. Knapsack Problems. Springer Science and Business Media, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Y. Kwon, M. Balazinska, B. Howe, and J. Rolia. Skewtune: Mitigating skew in mapreduce applications. In SIGMOD, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. H. A. Lagar-Cavilla, N. Tolia, M. Satyanarayanan, and E. de Lara. Vmm-independent graphics acceleration. In VEE, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. Lee, D. Chu, E. Cuervo, J. Kopf, Y. Degtyarev, S. Grizan, A. Wolman, and J. Flinn. Outatime: Using speculation to enable low-latency continuous interaction for cloud gaming. MobiSys 2015, May 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. W. R. Mark, L. McMillan, and G. Bishop. Post-rendering 3d warping. In Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, I3D '97, pages 7--ff., New York, NY, USA, 1997. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Martello and P. Toth. Knapsack Problems: Algorithms and Computer Implementations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. D. E. Porter, S. Boyd-Wickizer, J. Howell, R. Olinsky, and G. Hunt. Rethinking the library os from the top down. In ASPLOS, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. D. Price and A. Tucker. Solaris Zones: Operating System Support for Consolidating Commercial Workloads. In LISA, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. K. Tian, Y. Dong, and D. Cowperthwaite. A full gpu virtualization solution with mediated pass-through. In USENIX ATC, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity. Trans. Img. Proc., 13(4):600--612, Apr. 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. dJay: enabling high-density multi-tenancy for cloud gaming servers with dynamic cost-benefit GPU load balancing

        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
          SoCC '15: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing
          August 2015
          446 pages
          ISBN:9781450336512
          DOI:10.1145/2806777

          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 ACM 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 August 2015

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          SoCC '15 Paper Acceptance Rate34of157submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate169of722submissions,23%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader