Destination selection algorithm in a server migration service

Authors:
Asato Yamanaka;Yukinobu Fukushima;Tutomu Murase;Tokumi Yokohira;Tatsuya Suda
Affiliations:
Okayama University, Okayama, Japan;Okayama University, Okayama, Japan;NEC Corporation, Kanagawa, Japan;Okayama University, Okayama, Japan;University Netgroup Inc., Fallbrook, CA
Venue:
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Future Internet Technologies
Year:
2012

Citing 6
Cited 0

Part III: routers with very small buffers

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
Live migration of virtual machines

NSDI'05 Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation - Volume 2
Rethinking virtual network embedding: substrate support for path splitting and migration

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
A virtual network mapping algorithm based on subgraph isomorphism detection

Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Virtualized infrastructure systems and architectures
Network virtualization: state of the art and research challenges

IEEE Communications Magazine
A view of cloud computing

Communications of the ACM

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Using network virtualization technologies for network applications (NW-Apps) consisting of server and clients, we can implement a server migration service where there are many server running environments (working places: WPs) inside a network and servers on WPs can migrate to other WPs when communication QoSs in some NW-Apps fall off. Because server size is large, the traffic for server migration causes QoS degradation of its background traffic. Thus, it is important to decrease the degree (network impact) of the QoS degradation. In this paper, we propose three destination selection algorithms, MIA (Minimum Impact Algorithm), MRA (Maximum Remaining space Algorithm) and MCA (Maximum Covering Algorithm) that try to decrease the impact while increasing the number of NW-Apps' clients whose SLA (service level agreement) are satisfied. When a server migration is triggered, MIA, MRA and MCA move the server in the WP with the minimum impact, the WP with the maximum remaining space for servers and the WP with the maximum coverage, which is the number of routers under which the corresponding clients can communicate with the server while satisfying the SLA, respectively. Numerical examples show that when the number of accommodatable servers in full-cover WP (a full-cover WP is such WP that communicates with an arbitrary client while satisfying the SLA) is small or there is no full-cover WP, MIA outperforms the others, otherwise MCA outperforms the others.