Advertisement

Virtualizing IMS Core and Its Performance Analysis

  • Lingxia LiaoEmail author
  • Victor C. M. Leung
  • Min Chen
Conference paper
  • 1.3k Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 142)

Abstract

Current IP Multimedia System (IMS) industry faces the issue that the complicated architecture of IMS and the huge early investment in its network construction has slowed down its deployment and service innovation. Furthermore, IMS network also causes more computing and network resource waste than current telecom network becuase no existed method can be used to predict the capacity of data service with guaranteed Quality of Service (QoS) in IMS network. Present research and practice consider that virtualizing IMS core and running it on cloud can be a way to solve these problems. However, current research shows the virtualization brings at least five times longer response delays to IMS and makes it unfeasible to be used. We argue that hardware-assisted virtualization technology can improve the virtual machine performance, and through carefully tuning the virtual machine parameters, the overhead caused by virtual machines can be minimized. We choose OpenIMSCore as an IMS core network, IMS Benchmark SIPp as a traffic generator, design and conduct a performance test. The results show that running IMS core network on virtual machines has comparable response delays with it running on bare boxes. It is feasible to virtualize the IMS core network and run it on private clouds.

Keywords

Cloud computing Virtualization IMS architecture  Performance testing 

References

  1. 1.
    Poikselk, M., Mayer, G.: The IMS: IP Multimedia Concepts and Services. John Wiley and Sons, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rings, T., Caryer, G., Gallop, J., et al.: Grid and cloud computing: opportunities for integration with the next generation network. J. Grid Comput. 7(3), 375–393 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nokia Siemens Network. Cloud computing-business boost for communications industry (2011). http://bit.ly/nVlxRI/
  4. 4.
    Umair, M.: Performance Evaluation and Elastic Scaling of an IP Multimedia Subsystem Implemented in a Cloud (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corte, G.D., et al.: An IMS-based virtualized architecture: performance analysis. In: Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS International Conference on Mathematical Methods and Computational Techniques in Electrical Engineering. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chuan, S., Xiaoyong, H., Xiaodong, D.: Feasibility of the virtualization based on OpenIMSCore. In: Yang, G. (ed.) Proceedings of the ICCEAE2012. CCIS, vol. 181, pp. 539–544. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    INTEL CORPORATION. Intel virtualization technology specification for the IA-32 Intel architecture, April 2005Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    AMD. AMD64 Virtualization Codenamed ‘Pacifica’ Technology: Secure Virtual Machine Architecture Reference Manual, May 2005Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    3GPP, IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), TS 23.228, Release 6 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    3GPP, IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), TS 23.228, Release 7 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mell, P., Grance, T.: The NIST definition of Cloud Computing. Special Publication Draft-800-145 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoff: The Frogs Who Desired a King: A Virtualization and Cloud Computing Security Fable Set To Interpretive Dance (2009). http://www.rationalsurvivability.com/presentations/Frogs.pdf
  13. 13.
    Barham, P., et al.: Xen and the art of virtualization. ACM SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 37(5), 164–177 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Linux: 2.6.20 Kernel release notes. Virtualization support through KVM (2007). http://kernelnewbies.org
  15. 15.
    Oracle Corporation. Oracle and Virtualization (2010). http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/virtualization/index.html
  16. 16.
    Deshane, T., et al.: Quantitative comparison of Xen and KVM. Xen Summit, pp. 1–2, Boston, MA, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Danti, G.: Vmware vs Virtualbox vs KVM vs XEN: virtual machines performance comparison (2010). http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.php/virtualization/1-virtual-machines-performance-comparison.html
  18. 18.
    Chen, W., et al.: A novel hardware assisted full virtualization technique. In: The 9th International Conference for. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Adams, K., Agesen, O.: A comparison of software and hardware techniques for x86 virtualization. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 40(5), 2–13 (2006). ACMCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Menon, A., et al.: Diagnosing performance overheads in the xen virtual machine environment. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM/USENIX International Conference on Virtual Execution Environments. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    IBM. Kernel Virtual Machine (KVM): Tuning KVM for performance. http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/linuxonibm/liaat/liaattuning.pdf
  22. 22.
    VMware. Best Practices for performance Tuning of Latency Sensitive. http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/techpaper/VMW-Tuning-Latency-Sensitive-Workloads.pdf
  23. 23.
    OpenIMSCore Project official website. http://www.openimscore.org
  24. 24.
    IMS bench SIPp official website. http://sipp.sourceforge.net/imsbench/intro.html
  25. 25.
    Institute, E.T.S.: Telecommunications and Internet converged Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); IMS/NGN Performance Benchmark. ETSI TS 186, 1–8 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and TechnologyHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations