IBM%20T.J.%20Watson%20Research%20Center - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

IBM%20T.J.%20Watson%20Research%20Center

Description:

Deconstructing SPECweb99 Erich Nahum IBM T.J. Watson Research Center www.research.ibm.com/people/n/nahum nahum_at_us.ibm.com – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:279
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: Erich229
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: IBM%20T.J.%20Watson%20Research%20Center


1
Deconstructing SPECweb99
  • Erich Nahum

IBM T.J. Watson Research Center www.research.ibm
.com/people/n/nahum nahum_at_us.ibm.com
2
Talk Overview
  • Workload Generators
  • SPECweb99
  • Methodology
  • Results
  • Summary and Conclusions

3
Why Workload Generators?
  • Allows stress-testing and bug-finding
  • Gives us some idea of server capacity
  • Allows us a scientific process to compare
    approaches
  • e.g., server models, gigabit adaptors, OS
    implementations
  • Assumption is that difference in testbed
    translates to some difference in real-world
  • Allows the performance debugging cycle

Measure
Reproduce
Fix and/or improve
Find Problem
The Performance Debugging Cycle
4
How does W. Generation Work?
  • Many clients, one server
  • match asymmetry of Internet
  • Server is populated with some kind of synthetic
    content
  • Simulated clients produce requests for server
  • Master process to control clients, aggregate
    results
  • Goal is to measure server
  • not the client or network
  • Must be robust to conditions
  • e.g., if server keeps sending 404 not found, will
    clients notice?

Responses
Requests
5
Problems with Workload Generators
  • Only as good as our understanding of the traffic
  • Traffic may change over time
  • generators must too
  • May not be representative
  • e.g., are file size distributions from IBM.com
    similar to mine?
  • May be ignoring important factors
  • e.g., browser behavior, WAN conditions, modem
    connectivity
  • Still, useful for diagnosing and treating
    problems

6
What Server Workload Generators Exist?
  • Many. In order of publication
  • WebStone (SGI)
  • SPECweb96 (SPEC)
  • Scalable Client (Rice Univ.)
  • SURGE (Boston Univ.)
  • httperf (HP Labs)
  • SPECweb99 (SPEC)
  • TPC-W (TPC)
  • WaspClient (IBM)
  • WAGON (IBM)
  • Not to mention those for proxies (e.g. polygraph)
  • Focus of this talk SPECweb99

7
Why SPECweb99?
  • Has become the de-facto standard used in
    Industry
  • 141 submissions in 3 years on the SPEC web site
  • Hardware Compaq, Dell, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, Sun
  • OSes AIX, HPUX, Linux, Solaris, Windows NT
  • Servers Apache, IIS, Netscape, Tux, Zeus
  • Used within corporations for performance,
    testing, and marketing
  • E.g., within IBM, used by AIX, Linux, and 390
    groups
  • Begs the question how realistic is it?

8
Server Workload Characterization
  • Over the years, many observations have been made
    about Web server behavior
  • Request methods
  • Response codes
  • Document Popularity
  • Document Sizes
  • Transfer Sizes
  • Protocol use
  • Inter-arrival times
  • How well does SPECweb99 capture these
    characteristics?

9
History SPECweb96
  • SPEC Systems Performance Evaluation Consortium
  • Non-profit group with many benchmarks (CPU, FS)
  • Pay for membership, get source code
  • First attempt to get somewhat representative
  • Based on logs from NCSA, HP, Hal Computers
  • 4 classes of files
  • Poisson distribution within each class

Percentage Size
35.00 0-1 KB
50.00 1-10 KB
14.00 10-100 KB
1.00 100 KB 1 MB
10
SPECweb96 (cont)
  • Notion of scaling versus load
  • number of directories in data set size doubles as
    expected throughput quadruples (sqrt(throughput/5)
    10)
  • requests spread evenly across all application
    directories
  • Process based WG
  • Clients talk to master via RPC's
  • Does only GETS, no keep-alive
  • www.spec.org/osg/web96

11
Evolution SPECweb99
  • In response to people "gaming" benchmark, now
    includes rules
  • IP maximum segment lifetime (MSL) must be at
    least 60 seconds
  • Link-layer maximum transmission unit (MTU) must
    not be larger than 1460 bytes (Ethernet frame
    size)
  • Dynamic content may not be cached
  • not clear that this is followed
  • Servers must log requests.
  • W3C common log format is sufficient but not
    mandatory.
  • Resulting workload must be within 10 of target.
  • Error rate must be below 1.
  • Metric has changed
  • now "number of simultaneous conforming
    connections rate of a connection must be
    greater than 320 Kbps

12
SPECweb99 (cont)
  • Directory size has changed
  • (25 (400000/122000) simultaneous conns) /
    5.0)
  • Improved HTTP 1.0/1.1 support
  • Keep-alive requests (client closes after N
    requests)
  • Cookies
  • Back-end notion of user demographics
  • Used for ad rotation
  • Request includes user_id and last_ad
  • Request breakdown
  • 70.00 static GET
  • 12.45 dynamic GET
  • 12.60 dynamic GET with custom ad rotation
  • 04.80 dynamic POST
  • 00.15 dynamic GET calling CGI code

13
SPECweb99 (cont)
  • Other breakdowns
  • 30 HTTP 1.0 with no keep-alive or persistence
  • 70 HTTP 1.1 with keep-alive to "model"
    persistence
  • still has 4 classes of file size with Poisson
    distribution
  • supports Zipf popularity
  • Client implementation details
  • Master-client communication uses sockets
  • Code includes sample Perl code for CGI
  • Client configurable to use threads or processes
  • Much more info on setup, debugging, tuning
  • All results posted to web page,
  • including configuration back end code
  • www.spec.org/osg/web99

14
Methodology
  • Take a log from a large-scale SPECweb99 run
  • Take a number of available server logs
  • For each characteristic discussed in the
    literature
  • Show what SPECweb99 does
  • Compare to results from the literature
  • Compare to results from a set of sample server
    logs
  • Render judgment on how well SPECweb99 does

15
Sample Logs for Illustration
Name Chess 1997 Olympics 1998 IBM 1998 World Cup 1998 Dept. Store 2000 IBM 2001
Description Kasparov-Deep Blue Event Site Nagano 1998 Olympics Event Site Corporate Presence Sporting Event Site Online Shopping Corporate Presence
Period 2 weeks in May 1997 2 days in Feb 1998 1 day in June 1998 31 days in Jun-Jul 1998 12 days in June 2000 1 day in Feb 2001
Hits 1,586,667 5,800,000 11,485,600 1,111,970,278 13,169,361 12,445,739
Bytes 14,171,711 10,515,507 54,697,108 54,697,108 54,697,108 28,804,852
Clients 256,382 80,921 86,0211 2,240,639 86,021 319,698
URLS 2,293 30,465 15,788 89,997 15,788 42,874
Well use statistics generated from these logs as
examples.
16
Talk Overview
  • Workload Generators
  • SPECweb99
  • Methodology
  • Results
  • Summary and Conclusions

17
Request Methods
Chess 1997 Olymp. 1998 IBM 1998 W. Cup 1998 Dept. 2000 IBM 2001 SPEC web99
GET 92.18 99.37 99.91 99.75 99.42 97.54 95.06
HEAD 03.18 00.30 00.08 00.23 00.45 02.09 00.00
POST 00.01 00.04 00.02 00.01 00.01 00.20 04.93
Other noise noise noise noise noise noise noise
  • AW96, AW00, PQ00, KR01 majority are GETs, few
    POSTs
  • SPECweb99 No HEAD request, too many POSTS

18
Response Codes
Response Code Chess 1997 Olymp 1998 IBM 1998 W. Cup 1998 Dept. 2000 IBM 2001 SPEC web99
200 OK 85.32 76.02 75.28 79.46 86.80 67.73 100.00
206 Partial Cont 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.06 00.00 00.00 00.00
302 Found 00.05 00.05 01.18 00.56 00.56 15.11 00.00
304 Not Modified 13.73 23.25 22.84 19.75 12.40 16.26 00.00
403 Forbidden 00.01 00.02 00.01 00.00 00.02 00.01 00.00
404 Not Found 00.55 00.64 00.65 00.70 00.18 00.79 00.00
  • AW96, AW00, PQ00, KR01 Most are 200s, next
    304s
  • SPECweb99 doesnt capture anything but 200 OK

19
Resource Popularity
  • p(r) C/ralpha (alpha 1 true Zipf others
    Zipf-like")
  • Consistent with CBC95, AW96, CB96, PQ00, KR01
  • SPECweb99 does a good job here with alpha 1

20
Resource (File) Sizes
  • Lognormal body, consistent with results from
    AW96, CB96, KR01.
  • SPECweb99 curve is sparse, 4 distinct regions

21
Tails of the File Size
  • AW96, CB96 sizes have Pareto tail Downey01
    Sizes are lognormal.
  • SPECweb99 tail only goes to 900 KB (vs 10 MB for
    others)

22
Response (Transfer) Sizes
  • Lognormal body, consistent with CBC95, AW96,
    CB96, KR01
  • SPECweb99 doesnt capture zero-byte transfers
    (304s)

23
Transfer Sizes w/o 304s
  • When 304s removed, SPECweb99 much closer

24
Tails of the Transfer Size
  • SPECweb99 tail is neither lognormal nor pareto
  • Again, max transfer is only 900 KB

25
Inter-Arrival Times
  • Literature gives exponential distr. for session
    arrivals
  • KR01 Request inter-arrivals are pareto
  • Here we look at request inter-arrivals

26
Tails of Inter-Arrival Times
  • SPECweb99 has pareto tail
  • Not all others do, but may be due to truncation
  • (e.g. log duration of only one day)

27
HTTP Version
Protocol Version Chess 1997 Olymp. 1998 IBM 1998 W. Cup 1998 Dept. 2000 IBM 2001 SPEC web99
HTTP 1.0 95.30 78.56 77.22 78.62 51.13 51.08 30.00
HTTP 1.1 00.00 20.92 18.43 21.35 48.82 48.30 70.00
Unclear 04.70 00.05 04.34 00.02 00.05 00.06 00.00
  • Over time, more and more requests are served
    using 1.1
  • But SPECweb99 is much higher than any other log
  • Literature doesnt look at this, so no judgments

28
Summary and Conclusions
  • SPECweb99 has a mixed record depending on
    characteristic
  • Methods OK
  • Response codes bad
  • Document popularity good
  • File sizes OK to bad
  • Transfer sizes bad
  • Inter-arrival times good
  • Main problems are
  • Needs to capture conditional GETs with IMS for
    304s
  • Better file size distribution (smoother, larger)

29
Future Work
  • Several possibilities for future work
  • Compare logs with SURGE
  • More detail on HTTP 1.1 (requires better workload
    characterization, e.g. packet traces)
  • Dynamic content (e.g., TPC-W) (again, requires
    workload characterization)
  • Latter 2 will not be easy due to privacy,
    competitive concerns

30
Probability
  • Graph shows 3 distributions with average 2.
  • Note average ? median in some cases !
  • Different distributions have different weight
    in tail.

31
Important Distributions
  • Some Frequently-Seen Distributions
  • Normal
  • (avg. sigma, variance mu)
  • Lognormal
  • (x gt 0 sigma gt 0)
  • Exponential
  • (x gt 0)
  • Pareto
  • (x gt k, shape a, scale k)

32
Probability Refresher
  • Lots of variability in workloads
  • Use probability distributions to express
  • Want to consider many factors
  • Some terminology/jargon
  • Mean average of samples
  • Median half are bigger, half are smaller
  • Percentiles dump samples into N bins
  • (median is 50th percentile number)
  • Heavy-tailed
  • As x-gtinfinity

33
Session Inter-Arrivals
  • Inter-arrival time between successive requests
  • Think time"
  • difference between user requests vs. ALL requests
  • partly depends on definition of boundary
  • CB96 variability across multiple timescales,
    "self-similarity", average load very different
    from peak or heavy load
  • SCJO01 log-normal, 90 less than 1 minute.
  • AW96 independent and exponentially distributed
  • KR01 session arrivals follow poisson
    distribution, but requests follow pareto with
    a1.5

34
Protocol Support
  • IBM.com 2001 logs
  • Show roughly 53 of client requests are 1.1
  • KA01 study
  • 92 of servers claim to support 1.1 (as of Sep
    00)
  • Only 31 actually do most fail to comply with
    spec
  • SCJO01 show
  • Avg 6.5 requests per persistent connection
  • 65 have 2 connections per page, rest more.
  • 40-50 of objects downloaded by persistent
    connections

Appears that we are in the middle of a slow
transition to 1.1
35
WebStone
  • The original workload generator from SGI in 1995
  • Process based workload generator, implemented in
    C
  • Clients talk to master via sockets
  • Configurable client machines, client
    processes, run time
  • Measured several metrics avg max connect time,
    response time, throughput rate (bits/sec),
    pages, files
  • 1.0 only does GETS, CGI support added in 2.0
  • Static requests, 5 different file sizes

Percentage Size
35.00 500 B
50.00 5 KB
14.00 50 KB
0.90 500 KB
0.10 5 MB
www.mindcraft.com/webstone
36
SURGE
  • Scalable URL Reference GEnerator
  • Barford Crovella at Boston University CS Dept.
  • Much more worried about representativeness,
    captures
  • server file size distributions,
  • request size distribution,
  • relative file popularity
  • embedded file references
  • temporal locality of reference
  • idle periods ("think times") of users
  • Process/thread based WG

37
SURGE (cont)
  • Notion of user-equivalent
  • statistical model of a user
  • active off time (between URLS),
  • inactive off time (between pages)
  • Captures various levels of burstiness
  • Not validated, shows that load generated is
    different than SpecWeb96 and has more burstiness
    in terms of CPU and active connections
  • www.cs.wisc.edu/pb

38
S-Client
  • Almost all workload generators are closed-loop
  • client submits a request, waits for server, maybe
    thinks for some time, repeat as necessary
  • Problem with the closed-loop approach
  • client can't generate requests faster than the
    server can respond
  • limits the generated load to the capacity of the
    server
  • in the real world, arrivals dont depend on
    server state
  • i.e., real users have no idea about load on the
    server when they click on a site, although
    successive clicks may have this property
  • in particular, can't overload the server
  • s-client tries to be open-loop
  • by generating connections at a particular rate
  • independent of server load/capacity

39
S-Client (cont)
  • How is s-client open-loop?
  • connecting asynchronously at a particular rate
  • using non-blocking connect() socket call
  • Connect complete within a particular time?
  • if yes, continue normally.
  • if not, socket is closed and new connect
    initiated.
  • Other details
  • uses single-address space event-driven model like
    Flash
  • calls select() on large numbers of file
    descriptors
  • can generate large loads
  • Problems
  • client capacity is still limited by active FD's
  • arrival is a TCP connect, not an HTTP request
  • www.cs.rice.edu/CS/Systems/Web-measurement

40
TPC-W
  • Transaction Processing Council (TPC-W)
  • More known for database workloads like TPC-D
  • Metrics include dollars/transaction (unlike SPEC)
  • Provides specification, not source
  • Meant to capture a large e-commerce site
  • Models online bookstore
  • web serving, searching, browsing, shopping carts
  • online transaction processing (OLTP)
  • decision support (DSS)
  • secure purchasing (SSL), best sellers, new
    products
  • customer registration, administrative updates
  • Has notion of scaling per user
  • 5 MB of DB tables per user
  • 1 KB per shopping item, 25 KB per item in static
    images

41
TPC-W (cont)
  • Remote browser emulator (RBE)
  • emulates a single user
  • send HTTP request, parse, wait for thinking,
    repeat
  • Metrics
  • WIPS shopping
  • WIPSb browsing
  • WIPSo ordering
  • Setups tend to be very large
  • multiple image servers, application servers, load
    balancer
  • DB back end (typically SMP)
  • Example IBM 12-way SMP w/DB2, 9 PCs w/IIS 1M
  • www.tpc.org/tpcw
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com