Dynamic Memory Balancing for Virtualization

Allocating memory dynamically for virtual machines (VMs) according to their demands provides significant benefits as well as great challenges. Efficient memory resource management requires knowledge of the memory demands of applications or systems at runtime. A widely proposed approach is to constru...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:ACM transactions on architecture and code optimization 2016-04, Vol.13 (1), p.1-25
Main Authors: Wang, Zhigang, Wang, Xiaolin, Hou, Fang, Luo, Yingwei, Wang, Zhenlin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Construction costs
Demand
Dynamical systems
Dynamics
Monitoring
Optimization
Resources management
Run time (computers)
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Allocating memory dynamically for virtual machines (VMs) according to their demands provides significant benefits as well as great challenges. Efficient memory resource management requires knowledge of the memory demands of applications or systems at runtime. A widely proposed approach is to construct a miss ratio curve (MRC) for a VM, which not only summarizes the current working set size (WSS) of the VM but also models the relationship between its performance and the target memory allocation size. Unfortunately, the cost of monitoring and maintaining the MRC structures is nontrivial. This article first introduces a low-cost WSS tracking system with effective optimizations on data structures, as well as an efficient mechanism to decrease the frequency of monitoring. We also propose a Memory Balancer (MEB), which dynamically reallocates guest memory based on the predicted WSS. Our experimental results show that our prediction schemes yield a high accuracy of 95.2% and low overhead of 2%. Furthermore, the overall system throughput can be significantly improved with MEB, which brings a speedup up to 7.4 for two to four VMs and 4.54 for an overcommitted system with 16 VMs.
ISSN:1544-3566
1544-3973
DOI:10.1145/2851501