Advertisement

The Impact of the Storage Tier: A Baseline Performance Analysis of Containerized DBMS

  • Daniel SeyboldEmail author
  • Christopher B. Hauser
  • Georg Eisenhart
  • Simon Volpert
  • Jörg Domaschka
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11339)

Abstract

Containers emerged as cloud resource offerings. While the advantages of containers, such as easing the application deployment, orchestration and adaptation, work well for stateless applications, the feasibility of containerization of stateful applications, such as database management system (DBMS), still remains unclear due to potential performance overhead. The myriad of container operation models and storage backends even raises the complexity of operating a containerized DBMS. Here, we present an extensible evaluation methodology to identify performance overhead of a containerized DBMS by combining three operational models and two storage backends. For each combination a memory-bound and disk-bound workload is applied. The results show a clear performance overhead for containerized DBMS on top of virtual machines (VMs) compared to physical resources. Further, a containerized DBMS on top of VMs with different storage backends results in a tolerable performance overhead. Building upon these baseline results, we derive a set of open evaluation challenges for containerized DBMSs.

Keywords

Container YCSB Benchmarking DBMS MongoDB 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the EC’s Framework Programme HORIZON 2020 under grant agreement number 731664 (MELODIC) and 732667 (RECAP).

References

  1. 1.
    Baur, D., Seybold, D., Griesinger, F., Tsitsipas, A., Hauser, C.B., Domaschka, J.: Cloud orchestration features: are tools fit for purpose? In: UCC, pp. 95–101. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bekas, E., Magoutis, K.: Cross-layer management of a containerized NoSQL data store. In: 2017 IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Network and Service Management (IM), pp. 1213–1221. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns, B., Grant, B., Oppenheimer, D., Brewer, E., Wilkes, J.: Borg, omega, and kubernetes. Queue 14(1), 10 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, B.F., Silberstein, A., Tam, E., Ramakrishnan, R., Sears, R.: Benchmarking cloud serving systems with YCSB. In: ACM Symposium on Cloud computing, pp. 143–154. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Felter, W., Ferreira, A., Rajamony, R., Rubio, J.: An updated performance comparison of virtual machines and linux containers. In: ISPASS, pp. 171–172. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohamed, M., Warke, A., Hildebrand, D., Engel, R., Ludwig, H., Mandagere, N.: Ubiquity: extensible persistence as a service for heterogeneous container-based frameworks. In: Panetto, H., et al. (eds.) OTM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 716–731. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69462-7_45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morabito, R., Kjällman, J., Komu, M.: Hypervisors vs. lightweight virtualization: a performance comparison. In: IC2E, pp. 386–393. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rehman, K.T., Folkerts, E.: Performance of containerized database management systems. In: DBTEST, p. 6. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seybold, D.: Towards a framework for orchestrated distributed database evaluation in the cloud. In: Proceedings of the 18th Doctoral Symposium of the 18th International Middleware Conference, pp. 13–14. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seybold, D., Domaschka, J.: Is distributed database evaluation cloud-ready? In: Kirikova, M., et al. (eds.) ADBIS 2017. CCIS, vol. 767, pp. 100–108. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67162-8_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seybold, D., Wagner, N., Erb, B., Domaschka, J.: Is elasticity of scalable databases a myth? In: IEEE Big Data, pp. 2827–2836. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharma, P., Chaufournier, L., Shenoy, P., Tay, Y.: Containers and virtual machines at scale: a comparative study. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Middleware Conference, p. 1. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tarasov, V., et al.: In search of the ideal storage configuration for docker containers. In: FAS* W, pp. 199–206. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Truyen, E., Reniers, V., Van, D., Landuyt, B.L., Joosen, W., Bruzek, M.: Evaluation of container orchestration systems with respect to auto-recovery of databases (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verma, A., Pedrosa, L., Korupolu, M., Oppenheimer, D., Tune, E., Wilkes, J.: Large-scale cluster management at google with borg. In: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Computer Systems, p. 18. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xavier, M.G., De Oliveira, I.C., Rossi, F.D., Dos Passos, R.D., Matteussi, K.J., De Rose, C.A.: A performance isolation analysis of disk-intensive workloads on container-based clouds. In: PDP, pp. 253–260. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Seybold
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher B. Hauser
    • 1
  • Georg Eisenhart
    • 1
  • Simon Volpert
    • 1
  • Jörg Domaschka
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information Resource ManagementUlm UniversityUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations