skip to main content
10.1145/3472883.3487014acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Mu: An Efficient, Fair and Responsive Serverless Framework for Resource-Constrained Edge Clouds

Published:01 November 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Serverless computing platforms simplify development, deployment, and automated management of modular software functions. However, existing serverless platforms typically assume an over-provisioned cloud, making them a poor fit for Edge Computing environments where resources are scarce. In this paper we propose a redesigned serverless platform that comprehensively tackles the key challenges for serverless functions in a resource constrained Edge Cloud.

Our Mu platform cleanly integrates the core resource management components of a serverless platform: autoscaling, load balancing, and placement. Each worker node in Mu transparently propagates metrics such as service rate and queue length in response headers, feeding this information to the load balancing system so that it can better route requests, and to our autoscaler to anticipate workload fluctuations and proactively meet SLOs. Data from the Autoscaler is then used by the placement engine to account for heterogeneity and fairness across competing functions, ensuring overall resource efficiency, and minimizing resource fragmentation. We implement our design as a set of extensions to the Knative serverless platform and demonstrate its improvements in terms of resource efficiency, fairness, and response time.

Evaluating Mu, shows that it improves fairness by more than 2x over the default Kubernetes placement engine, improves 99th percentile response times by 62% through better load balancing, reduces SLO violations and resource consumption by pro-active and precise autoscaling. Mu reduces the average number of pods required by more than ~15% for a set of real Azure workloads.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

Day1_Session4-Order1.mp4

mp4

372.9 MB

References

  1. 2021. 503 Service Unavailable. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/503. [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2021. Borg: The Predecessor to Kubernetes. https://kubernetes.io/blog/2015/04/borg-predecessor-to-kubernetes/ [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2021. Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA). https://knative.dev/docs/serving/autoscaling/autoscaling-concepts/#horizontal-pod-autoscaler-hpa [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2021. Knative. https://knative.dev/ [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2021. Knative Pod Autoscaler (KPA). https://knative.dev/docs/serving/autoscaling/autoscaling-concepts/#knative-pod-autoscaler-kpa [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2021. Kubernetes. https://kubernetes.io/ [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dimitri P Bertsekas, Robert G Gallager, and Pierre Humblet. 1992. Data networks. Vol. 2. Prentice-Hall International New Jersey.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Flavio Bonomi, Rodolfo A. Milito, Jiang Zhu, and Sateesh Addepalli. 2012. Fog computing and its role in the internet of things. In Proceedings of the first edition of the MCC workshop on Mobile cloud computing, MCC@SIGCOMM 2012, Helsinki, Finland, August 17, 2012, Mario Gerla and Dijiang Huang (Eds.). ACM, 13--16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2342509.2342513Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Anshul Gandhi, Xi Zhang, and Naman Mittal. 2015. HALO: Heterogeneity-Aware Load Balancing. In 2015 IEEE 23rd International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems. 242--251. https://doi.org/10.1109/MASCOTS.2015.14 ISSN: 1526--7539.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ali Ghodsi, Matei Zaharia, Benjamin Hindman, Andy Konwinski, Scott Shenker, and Ion Stoica. 2011. Dominant Resource Fairness: Fair Allocation of Multiple Resource Types.. In NSDI. 24--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Katja Gilly, Carlos Juiz, and Ramon Puigjaner. 2011. An up-to-date survey in web load balancing. World Wide Web 14, 2 (March 2011), 105--131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-010-0101-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Robert Grandl, Ganesh Ananthanarayanan, Srikanth Kandula, Sriram Rao, and Aditya Akella. 2014. Multi-resource packing for cluster schedulers. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 44, 4 (2014), 455--466.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Varun Gupta, Mor Harchol Balter, Karl Sigman, and Ward Whitt. 2007. Analysis of join-the-shortest-queue routing for web server farms. Performance Evaluation 64, 9 (Oct. 2007), 1062--1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peva. 2007.06.012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. LLC Gurobi Optimization. 2021. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual. http://www.gurobi.com [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Pawan Kumar and Rakesh Kumar. 2019. Issues and Challenges of Load Balancing Techniques in Cloud Computing: A Survey. Comput. Surveys 51, 6 (Feb. 2019), 120:1--120:35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3281010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Junfeng Li, Sameer G Kulkarni, K. K. Ramakrishnan, and Dan Li. 2019. Understanding open source serverless platforms: Design considerations and performance. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Serverless Computing. 37--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Wes Lloyd and et al. 2018. Serverless computing: An investigation of factors influencing microservice performance. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E). IEEE, 159--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Garrett McGrath and Paul R Brenner. 2017. Serverless computing: Design, implementation, and performance. In 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW). IEEE, 405--410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. M. Mitzenmacher. 2001. The power of two choices in randomized load balancing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 12, 10 (Oct. 2001), 1094--1104. https://doi.org/10.1109/71.963420 Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. K. Mohanty, G. Premsankar, and M. di Francesco. 2018. An Evaluation of Open Source Serverless Computing Frameworks. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom). 115--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Andrei Palade, Aqeel Kazmi, and Siobhán Clarke. 2019. An Evaluation of Open Source Serverless Computing Frameworks Support at the Edge. In 2019 IEEE World Congress on Services (SERVICES), Vol. 2642. IEEE, 206--211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Christos-Alexandros Psomas and Jarett Schwartz. 2013. Beyond beyond dominant resource fairness: Indivisible resource allocation in clusters. Tech Report Berkeley, Tech. Rep. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Robert Ricci, Eric Eide, and CloudLab Team. 2014. Introducing Cloud-Lab: Scientific infrastructure for advancing cloud architectures and applications. The magazine of USENIX & SAGE 39, 6 (2014), 36--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Mahadev Satyanarayanan, Zhuo Chen, Kiryong Ha, Wenlu Hu, Wolfgang Richter, and Padmanabhan Pillai. 2014. Cloudlets: at the Leading Edge of Mobile-Cloud Convergence. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile Computing, Applications and Services. ICST, Austin, United States. https://doi.org/10.4108/icst.mobicase.2014.257757Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Johann Schleier-Smith, Vikram Sreekanti, Anurag Khandelwal, Joao Carreira, Neeraja J. Yadwadkar, Raluca Ada Popa, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and David A. Patterson. 2021. What serverless computing is and should become: the next phase of cloud computing. Commun. ACM 64, 5 (April 2021), 76--84. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mohammad Shahrad, Rodrigo Fonseca, Íñigo Goiri, Gohar Chaudhry, Paul Batum, Jason Cooke, Eduardo Laureano, Colby Tresness, Mark Russinovich, and Ricardo Bianchini. 2020. Serverless in the wild: Characterizing and optimizing the serverless workload at a large cloud provider. In 2020 {USENIX} Annual Technical Conference ({USENIX} {ATC} 20). 205--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Tarik Taleb, Konstantinos Samdanis, Badr Mada, Hannu Flinck, Sunny Dutta, and Dario Sabella. 2017. On Multi-Access Edge Computing: A Survey of the Emerging 5G Network Edge Cloud Architecture and Orchestration. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials 19, 3 (2017), 1657--1681. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2705720Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Liang Wang and et al. 2018. Peeking behind the curtains of serverless platforms. In 2018 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 18). 133--146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Cui Yan. 2017. How does language, memory and package size affect cold starts of AWS Lambda? https://read.acloud.guru/does-coding-language-memory-or-package-size-affect-cold-starts-of-aws-lambda-a15e26d12c76. [online].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Mu: An Efficient, Fair and Responsive Serverless Framework for Resource-Constrained Edge Clouds

      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 '21: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing
        November 2021
        685 pages
        ISBN:9781450386388
        DOI:10.1145/3472883

        Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 November 2021

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate169of722submissions,23%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader