Get documents about "Evaluation of CPU Consuming, Memory Utilization and Time Transfering Between Virtual Machines in Network by using HTTP and FTP techniques
Shared by: ijcsiseditor
Categories
Tags
IJCSIS, call for paper, journal computer science, research, google scholar, IEEE, Scirus, download, ArXiV, library, information security, internet, peer review, scribd, docstoc, cornell university, archive, Journal of Computing, DOAJ, Open Access, June 2011, Volume 9, No. 6, Impact Factor, engineering, international, proQuest, computing, computer, technology
-
Stats
- views:
- 123
- posted:
- 7/5/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 6
Document Sample
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2011
Evaluation of CPU Consuming, Memory
Utilization and Time Transfering Between Virtual
Machines in Network by using HTTP and FTP
techniques.
Igli TAFA, Elinda KAJO, Elma ZANAJ, Ariana BEJLERI, Aleksandër XHUVANI
Polytechnic University of Tirana, Information Technology Faculty
Computer Engineering Department
Tiranë, Albania
itafaj@gmail.com, e_kajo@yahoo.com, ezanaj@gmail.com, arianabejleri@yahoo.com,
axhuvani@yahoo.com
Abstract: In this paper we want to evaluate Transfer Hypervisor than those machines without it. Another
Time, Memory Utilization and CPU Consuming problem is Physical Memory utilization and data
between virtual machines in Network by using FTP and overhead during live migration phase. Some
HTTP benchmarks. As a virtualization platform for researchers in [13], [14] presented some methods of
running the benchmarks we have used Xen hypervisor
memory overbooking and compression of this
in para-virtualization mode. The virtual machine
technology offers some benefits such as live migration, memory in virtual machine, in order to improve
fault tolerance, security, resource management etc. The memory utilization and performance of migration.
experiments performed show that virtual machines
above the hypervisor consume more CPU, memory and In this paper we analyze Transfer Time, CPU
have bigger transfer times than in a non virtualized Consuming and Memory Utilization between Virtual
environment. machines and physical machines by using FTP [15]
and HTTP requests [13]. All results are presented in
Keywords: Transfer Time, Memory Utilization, CPU respectively tables.
Consuming, Virtual Machines, Xen-Hypervisor.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II dis
I. INTRODUCTION scribes the experimental architecture. Section III
presents the experimental evaluation. Section IV
Virtual machine technology offers a lot of benefits as presents conclusions and outlines areas of future
shown in previous research work.
[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] such are live migration,
fault tolerance, security, resource management and II. EXPERIMENTAL ARCHITECTURE
reduced energy consumption. Some virtual machine
technologies are based on a software layer called The Figure 1 and Figure 2 we present the basic of
Hypervisor [9]. There are [10] three main types of experimental architecture. In Figure 1 there are 2
virtualization: full virtualization, OS virtualization computers which are connected with UTP cat 7 cable
and para-virtualization. Para virtualization approach using Twisted Pair technique. Communication of two
gives more flexibility than others. Based on this computers is Full duplex. Both computers can
approach we can use ESX-Server [ 11] or Xen [] . communicate with each other by network fast-
Because Xen is free open source and implements ethernet interface 100/1000 Mbit/sec. In each
ballooning method [12] we have used this Hypervisor computer we have setup the virtual machine
. environment with Xen 4.1 and CentOS 5.5 as Dom0
operating system.
Anyway, the virtualization technology offers some
“black holes”, for example the Hypervisor introduces
a slight delay during a transfers from one machine to
another one [13]. Also CPU consumes more
functionalities in machines which include the
100 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2011
Evaluation of transfer time in FTP server
Evaluation of transfer time between 2 VM on
the same Host
Evaluation of transfer time between 2 VM on
different Hosts
Evaluation of transfer time between 2 physical
machines connected by twisted pair cable.
Evaluation of transfer time between 3 Physical
Fig.1 Communication between 2 Physical Machine with Twisted Machines connected by Gigabit Switch
Pair. Above those hosts are Guest Virtual Machines.
Initially we have used 2 physical machines which
In figure 2 we have installed 3 computers connected support 2 virtual machines, by using para-
with Gigabit switch. The topology of routing is Bus. virtualization approach (XEN 4.1). In both machines
Communication is Full Duplex. We used a we have installed CentOS 5.5 as Dom0. In DomU1
management Gigabit Cisco Switch, but we could use and DomU2 respectively we have installed Scientific
simple switch too. Linux 6.0 and Ubuntu 10.04 Server for the first
machine. In the second machine in DomU1 is
installed Ubuntu 10.04 Server. Initially we want to
test the transfer time from a client to a server
between 2 VM in the same physical host by using
FTP technique. We will repeat the test by using 2
virtual machines in different physical hosts and
finally we will evaluate this time between 2 physical
machines connected by twisted pair technique. We
want to transfer ISO image (XP.ISO with SP2 = 557
MB). In the machine with Scientific Linux 6.0 we run
a FTP client and in Ubuntu 10.04 a FTP server. To
realize the transfer of XP.ISO file from one machine
to another we have used Samba FTP tool (which is
part of Scientific or Ubuntu Server). We can measure
the time of file transfer from the start moment at
source machine to the destination machine.
Fig 2. Three Computers connected with a Gigabit Switch. Above The experiment is repeated again with Scientific
Host computers are setup Virtual Machines
Linux 6.0 client machine as DomU1 in host 1 and
Ubuntu 10.04 Server as DomU1 in host 2 which is
The architecture of all the machines is X86 - 64 bit, used as FTP server.
RAM 4 GB. CPU Quad-Core, supported with VT
and Hyper-threading technology. Finally we will evaluate the time transferred between
2 physical machines, respectively host 1 and host 2.
III. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION: Host 2 will serve as FTP server and Host 1 as a FTP
client. The results are presented in table 1:
The evaluation is separated in three phases:
TABLE1 THE EVALUATION OF TIME TRANSFERRED OF
Evaluation of transfer time for FTP and Web XP ISO IMAGE BY USING SAMBA FTP TOOL
servers
Time transferred Time transferred Time transferred
Evaluation of CPU consumption for FTP and between 2 VM on between 2 VM on between 2 Physical
Web servers the same Host different Hosts Hosts
(Host 1)
Evaluation of memory utilization for FTP and
48 sec 86 sec 36 sec
Web serves
101 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2011
In Figure 2 we have 3 computers connected with a Evaluation of CPU consuming in FTP Server
Gigabit Switch. All computers communicate with
each other by Fiber channel. This communication We want to evaluate the CPU consuming of Web
will increase the performance of network (As it Server which means how much is the percentage of
knows communication with fiber channel utilize CPU dedicated to our experiment. It is presented in
more bandwidth and speed than UTP cable). The average values during the test in figure 1 and figure
third computer is a clone of second computer. Now 2. To monitor the CPU consuming we have to used
we want to evaluate the transfer time between 2 VM xentop command in /proc and System Monitor into
in different hosts (i.e between DomU1 in host 1 and System Administrator Menu. Both of them offer an
DomU1 in host3). Then will transfer the image from explicit form of CPU consuming including all located
computer 1 to computer 3. The results are presented processes into computer by calculating the average
in table 2 value [ (DomU1+DomU2+…)/n where n is the
number of virtual machines (The same thing would
TABLE 2 THE EVALUATION OF TIME TRANSFERRED OF be with physical machines) ] of these processes in
XP ISO IMAGE BY USING SAMBA FTP
virtual or physical machines in our experiment. To
calculate the total CPU consuming we have built a
Time transferred between 2 Time transferred between 2
VM on different Hosts Physical Hosts (Host 1 and
script in C which gives a formula:
(DomU1 in Host 1 and Dom Host 3)
U1 in Host3) Running process rate x nr of active process +
Sleeping process rate x nr of sleeping process= Total
83 sec 32 sec CPU Consuming (1)
TABLE.3 AVERAGE OF CPU CONSUMING DURING THE
TRANSFERRED OF 557 MB BASED ON FIGURE 1 AND
FORMULA 1
Let`s analyze Tab. 1 and Tab. 2.
CPU consuming CPU consuming CPU consuming
In Tab. 1 the time transferred between 2 VM on the between 2 VM on between 2 VM on between 2 Physical
same host is small. This is because the transfer of 557 the same Host different Hosts Hosts
MB image file from one VM to another one (Host 1)
performed over the interfaces of the same computer
architecture (In reality we are in the same computer). 61,4% 62,2 % 55.1 %
If we compare time transferred between 2 VM on
different host as it looks from table 1, total time
transferring is 86 sec. The reasons are:
TABLE. 4 AVERAGE OF CPU CONSUMING DURING THE
The transferred speed of the file between 2 TRANSFERRED OF 557 MB BASED ON FIGURE 2 AND
computers over the network is more slowly FORMULA 1
then the internal interface of computer
architecture (ISA interface). CPU consuming between 2 CPU consuming between 2
VM on different Hosts Physical Hosts (Host 1 and
Media communication between hosts is based (DomU1 in Host 1 and Dom Host 3)
on UTP cat 7 which is more slowly then other U1 in Host3)
medias (i.e fiber media, which is presented in
61,45% 55.16%
table 2)
Also in table 1 we show that time transferred between
different hosts is 36 sec (< 86 sec and < 48 sec). In
the both cases the main reason is the delay that is As it look from table 3 CPU consuming between 2
introduced from the Hypervisor. VM is higher than between 2 physical machines. The
reason is a part of CPU, consumes to maintenance
In table 2, the time decrease slightly. The reason is the Hypervisor. (61,4 % > 55,1 %). CPU consuming
media communication. In table 2 we are using doesn’t affect from the computer communication in
Gigabit Switch and Fiber channel communication network. This is the reason that in table 4, CPU
while in table 1 we are using only UTP cable. consuming has the same values as table 3.
102 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2011
Evaluation of memory utilization in FTP Server Hosts (DomU1 in Host 1 and 1 and Host 3)
Dom U1 in Host3)
We want to evaluate the physical memory utilization
Host 1 MAX= 1,06 GB of Host 1 MAX=687 MB of RAM
during the transferring .iso image from one virtual
RAM (≈17 % of RAM)
machine to another, inside a physical host. Then we
want to evaluate the Physical memory utilization Host 2 MAX= 1,08 GB of Host 2 MAX= 711 MB of
while .iso image transferring between two virtual RAM RAM ( ≈ 17 % of RAM)
machines in different physical hosts. Initially we
have used Mem_Access [13], but now we have used Both (≈ 41 % of RAM)
this tool to evaluate the Mem-Utilization during file
transfer. We have implemented this tool to a script
which is write in C and called MemC. For each 10
MB transfer from Server Machine to Client Machine In table 5 and table 6 we presented that memory
it calculates Memory Utilization by activation this utilization doesn`t affect from communication in
tool. The result is resolve in a record. This record is
networks, but it affects from presence of the
part of “My SQL” Data Base which is installed in
Server Machine (mysql Ver 12.21 Distrib 4.0.14, for Hypervisor (from 41 % to 17 %)
pc-linux). Average Memory Utilization is Total
Sum of record dividing with nr of records. Always Evaluation of memory utilization and CPU
we can use Samba FTP server for transferring data consuming in Web Server
from one machine to another one. Finally we repeat
the experiment by using transfer between 2 physical We will repeat the above experiment by using Web
hosts (fig 1). Table 5 give the results for memory server instead of FTP Server. Initially we will
utilization between 2 virtual machines. accomplish the experiment inside a physical machine
between 2 VM. Then we will repeat the test between
TABLE.5 PHYSICAL MEMORY UTILIZATION DURING THE 2 Physical Machines (Fig 1).
.ISO FILE TRANSFER BY USING SAMBA FTP BASED ON
FIGURE 1. We have installed LAMP (Appache 2 and My SQL
client , My SQL Server) in Web Server Virtual
Average Memory Average Memory Average Memory Machine or Web Server Physical Machine.
utilization between Utilization between Utilization between
2 VM on the same 2 VM on different 2 Physical Hosts We have built another script in C++, called MemCP
Host (Host 1) Hosts (Dom U1 in (Host 1 is a Client which get information from MemAccess benchmark
Host 1 is a Client FTP and Host 2 is a for every request ( From Client machine to Server
FTP and Dom U1 Server FTP)
machine) and previously script which was located in
in Host 2 is a
/proc. This script make a calculation by adding the
Server FTP)
results got it in module of Apache 2 installed in our
MAX = 1,06 GB of Host 1 MAX= 1,06 Host 1 MAX=687 machine. This module is implemented in order to
RAM (≈41 % of GB of RAM MB of RAM (≈17 include the MemAccess tool for each request. The
RAM) % of RAM) results obtained present the Memory utilization in
Host 2 MAX= 1,08 each Virtual Machine for each process which is
GB of RAM Host 2 MAX= 711 located in host computer. Total results can present in
MB of RAM (≈ percentage. Each request from Client Machine to
Both (≈ 41 % of 17 % of RAM) Server Machine performed by using Httperf
RAM) Benchmark which can generate 10 request in Second.
The time duration of experiment is 1 minute. One
request is equal to 10 MB which corresponds to
.html file located in /home. Results are presented in
If we repeat the experiment based on figure 2 we will Table 7.
present the results in table 6.
TABLE 7 MEMORY UTILIZATION IN WEB SERVER BY
TABLE 6 PHYSICAL MEMORY UTILIZATION DURING THE USING HTTPERF BENCHMARK.
.ISO FILE TRANSFER BY USING SAMBA FTP BASED ON
FIGURE 2. Memory utilization Memory Utilization Memory Utilization
between 2 VM on between 2 VM on between 2 Physical
Average Memory Utilization Average Memory Utilization the same Host different Hosts Hosts (Host 1 is a
between 2 VM on different between 2 Physical Hosts (Host (Dom U1 in Host 1 Client and Host 2 is
103 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2011
(Host 1) is a Client and Dom Web Server) TAB.9 TIME REQUEST IN WEB SERVER BY USING
U1 in Host 2 is HTTPERF BENCHMARK.
Web Server)
Time request in Time request in Time request in
(≈37 % of RAM) Web Server (≈37,7 Web Server (≈16,6 Web Server Web Server Web Server
% of RAM) % of RAM) between 2 VM on between 2 VM on between 2 Physical
the same Host different Hosts Hosts
(Host 1)
38 sec 66 sec 33 sec
TAB. 8 CPU CONSUMING IN WEB SERVER BY USING
HTTPERF BENCHMARK.
CPU consuming CPU consuming CPU consuming
between 2 VM on between 2 VM on between 2 Physical If we make a comparison between Tab.9 and Tab.1,
the same Host different Hosts in Hosts in Web the time request for Web Server is smaller than Time
(Host 1) in Web Web Server Server transferred in FTP (38 sec < 48 sec, 66 sec < 86 sec).
Server
This time is not affect so much in third case. In this
case we are not using Hypervisor (33 sec < 36 sec)
57,4% 57,5 % 53,6 %
The reasons are :
Request in Httperf are smaller, so that doesn’t
If we compare Table 7 and Table 5, Memory give any effect in degradation of CPU.
Utilization during File (557 MB) transferring in FTP
Server is bigger than Memory Utilizes in Http Memory utilization of Httperf ( Tab.7) is
Request in Web Server (41 % > 37 %). The reasons smaller than Memory Utilization of FTP
are: (which uses Samba FTP tool)
FTP uses 2 connections in communication IV. CONCLUSIONS
Client/Server. One for synchronization and
one for data transmission, while Web Server FTP approach consumes more CPU, Time and
uses only 1 connection. Each request reserves Memory Utilization than Web Approach
a small amount of memory.
The Hypervisor offers an additive time for
Introduction of the Hypervisor in Web Server both approaches, but it is significantly in FTP
during the requests from Client to Server approach
offers a smaller effect than FTP Server
Transfer Process between 2 Physical
If the computers don`t use Hypervisor during Machines offer a better performance than
transfers, Memory Utilization is between 2 Virtual Machines.
approximately the same.
Introduction of good environment decrease the
If we compare Table 8 and Table 3, CPU consuming time consuming between machines and
during file transfer in FTP Server is bigger than Http increase the CPU performance. (Fiber channel
request in Web Server. The reasons are the same as is better environment than UTP channel)
Memory Utilizes.
In the future we want to test the performance and
Evaluation of Time Transferring in Web Server. CPU and memory utilization by using:
Finally, we can repeat the experiment by using Live Migration between 2 machines
HTTPerf Benchmark. We want to evaluate the time
duration after 56 requests from client machine to Memory Compaction Algorithms and their
Web Server machine. Every request is 10 MB. So we effects in Memory Utilization
will test approximately in the same conditions the
results of table 9 with table 1 (10x56 requests =560 Memory Ballooning approach and it`s effect
MB in Web Request ≈ 557 MB in FTP) in CPU consuming.
Extension of these experiments in WAN.
104 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 9, No. 6, June 2011
References: [11] Carl Waldspurger, 2006, “Memory Resource Management in
VMWare ESX Server”
[12] Weiming Zhao, Zhenling Wang, 2009, “Dyanamic Memory
[1] Hien Nguyen Van, Fr´ed´eric Dang Tran, 2009, “Autonomic
Balancing for Virtual Machines”.
virtual resource management for service hosting platforms”
[13] Jin Heo, Xiaoyun Zhu, Pradeep Padala, Zhikui Wang,2010,
[2] Michael Cardosa, Madhukar R. Korupolu, Aameek Singh,
“Memory Overbooking and Dynamic Control of Xen Virtual
2007, “Shares and Utilities based Power Consolidation in
Machines in Consolidated Environments”
Virtualized Server Environments”
[14] Hai Jin, Li Deng, Song Wu, “Live Virtual Machine Migration
[3] Keller, G.; Lutfiyya, H.; Dept. of Comput,,2010,
with Adaptive Memory Compaction”
“Replication and Migration as Resource Management Mechanisms
[15] Moreira, Miguel Elias M. Campista, Lu´ıs Henrique M. K.
for Virtualized Environments”
Costa, and Otto Carlos M. B. Duarte, 2007, “OpenFlow and Xen-
[4] Ando, R.; Zong-Hua Zhang; Kadobayashi, Y.; Shinoda,
Based Virtual Network Migration”
Y.; ,2009,” A Dynamic Protection System of Web Server in Virtual
Cluster Using Live Migration”
Authors Profile
[5] Takahiro Hirofuchi Hirotaka Ogawa Hidemoto Nakada Satoshi
Igli TAFA. He is a pedagogue in Polytechnic University, in
Itoh Satoshi Sekiguchi ,2009, “A Live Storage Migration
Computer Engineering Department. In 2008 he has finished
Mechanism over WAN for Relocatable Virtual Machine Services
the Master Thesis and now is PhD student. His PhD topic
on Clouds”
according to Virtual Machines direction.
[6] Moghaddam, F.F.; Cheriet, M.; 2010, “Decreasing live virtual
Elinda KAJO (MECE). She is a pedagogue in Polytechnic
machine migration down-time using a memory page selection
University, in Computer Engineering Department. She has
based on memory”
finished the PhD thesis at 2004 in Object Oriented
[7] Wei Wang; Ya Zhang; Ben Lin; Xiaoxin Wu; Kai
Programing direction.
Miao; ,2010, “Secured and reliable VM migration in personal
Elma ZANAJ. She is a pedagogue in Polytechnic University
cloud”
in Computer Engineering Department. She has finished the
[8] Anton Beloglazov* and Rajkumar Buyya, 2010, “Energy
PhD thesis at 2009 in Computer Sensor Network direction in
Efficient Resource Management in Virtualized Cloud Data
Polytechnic University of Ancona Italy.
Centers”
Aleksandër XHUVANI. He is a chief of Computer Software
[9] Andrew Tanenbaum, 2009, “Modern Operating System”
Department in Polytechnic University. He has finished the
[10] Espen Braastad, 2006, “Management of high availability
PhD study at Bordeaux in France. At 2004 he is graduated
services using virtualization”
as Prof.Dr.
105 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500
Related docs
Other docs by ijcsiseditor
Digital Images Encryption in Spatial Domain Based on Singular Value Decomposition and Cellular Automata
Views: 0 | Downloads: 0
Agent Behavior in Multiagent Systems: Issues and Challenges in Design, Development and Implementation
Views: 1 | Downloads: 0
Optimizing Cost, Delay, Packet Loss and Network Load in AODV Routing Protocols
Views: 2 | Downloads: 0
