The Cloud Foundry Diego team at Pivotal has been hard at work for the past few months exploring and improving Diego's performance at scale and under stress. This talk covers the goals, tools, and results of the experiments to date, as well as a glimpse of what's next. And finally, a brief teaser about the current state of .NET support in Diego

1. How does the Cloud Foundry
Diego Project Run at Scale?
and updates on .NET Support

2. Who’s this guy?
• Amit Gupta
• https://akgupta.ca
• @amitkgupta84

3. Who’s this guy?
• Berkeley math grad school… dropout
• Rails consulting… deserter
• now I do BOSH, Cloud Foundry, Diego, etc.

4. Testing Diego Performance at Scale
• current Diego architecture
• performance testing approach
• test specifications
• test implementation and tools
• results
• bottom line
• next steps

5. Current Diego Architecture
+

6. Current Diego Architecture
What’s new-ish?
• consul for service discovery
• receptor (API) to decouple from CC
• SSH proxy for container access
• NATS-less auction
• garden-windows for .NET applications

7. Current Diego Architecture
Main components:
• etcd ephemeral data store
• consul service discovery
• receptor Diego API
• nsync sync CC desired state w/Diego
• route-emitter sync with gorouter
• converger health mgmt & consistency
• garden containerization
• rep sync garden actual state w/Diego
• auctioneer workload scheduling

8. Performance Testing Approach
• full end-to-end tests
• do a lot of stuff:
– is it correct, is it performant?
• kill a lot of stuff:
– is it correct, is it performant?
• emit logs and metrics (business as usual)
• plot & visualize
• fix stuff, repeat at higher scale*

9. Test Specifications
#1: #2:
#3: #4:

10. Test Specifications
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 1
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 2
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 5
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 10
n

11. Test Specifications
• Diego does tasks and long-running processes
• launch 10n, …, 400n tasks:
– workload distribution?
– scheduling time distribution?
– running time distribution?
– success rate?
– growth rate?
• launch 10n, …, 400n-instance LRP:
– same questions…

12. Test Specifications
• Diego+CF stages and runs apps
• > cf push
• upload source bits
• fetch buildpack and stage droplet (task)
• fetch droplet and run app (LRP)
• dynamic routing
• streaming logs

13. Test Specifications
• bring up n nodes in parallel
– from each node, push a apps in parallel
– from each node, repeat this for r rounds
• a is always ≈ 20
• r is always = 40
• n starts out = 1

14. Test Specifications
• the pushed apps have varying characteristics:
– 1-4 instances
– 128M-1024M memory
– 1M-200M source code payload
– 1-20 log lines/second
– crash never vs. every 30 s

15. Test Specifications
• starting with n=1:
– app instances ≈ 1k
– instances/cell ≈ 100
– memory utilization across cells ≈ 90%
– app instances crashing (by-design) ≈ 10%

16. Test Specifications
• evaluate:
– workload distribution
– success rate of pushes
– success rate of app routability
– times for all the things in the push lifecycles
– crash recovery behaviour
– all the metrics!

17. Test Specifications
• kill 10% of cells
– watch metrics for recovery behaviour
• kill moar cells… and etcd
– does system handle excess load gracefully?
• revive everything with > bosh cck
– does system recover gracefully…
– with no further manual intervention?

18. Test Specifications
– Figure Out What’s Broke –
– Fix Stuff –
– Move On Scale Up & Repeat –

19. Test Implementation and Tools
• S3 log, graph, plot backups
• ginkgo & gomega testing DSL
• BOSH parallel test-lab deploys
• tmux & ssh run test suites remotely
• papertrail log archives
• datadog metrics visualizations
• cicerone (custom) log visualizations

20. Results
400 tasks’ lifecycle timelines, dominated by container creation

21. Results
Maybe some cells’ gardens were running slower?

22. Results
Grouping by cell shows uniform container creation slowdown

23. Results
So that’s not it…
Also, what’s with the blue steps?
Let’s visualize logs a couple more ways
Then take stock of the questions raised

24. Results
Let’s just look at scheduling (ignore container creation, etc.)

25. Results
Scheduling again, grouped by which API node handled the request

26. Results
And how about some histograms of all the things?

27. Results
From the 400-task request from “Fezzik”:
• only 3-4 (out of 10) API nodes handle reqs?
• recording task reqs take increasing time?
• submitting auction reqs sometimes slow?
• later auctions take so long?
• outliers wtf?
• container creation takes increasing time?

28. Results
• only 3-4 (out of 10) API nodes handle reqs?
– when multiple address requests during DNS lookup, Golang
returns the DNS response to all requests; this results in only 3-4
API endpoint lookups for the whole set of tasks
• recording task reqs take increasing time?
– API servers use an etcd client with throttling on # of concurrent
requests
• submitting auction reqs sometimes slow?
– auction requests require API node to lookup auctioneer address
in etcd, using throttled etcd client

29. Results
• later auctions take so long?
– reps were taking longer to report their state to auctioneer,
because they were making expensive calls to garden,
sequentially, to determine current resource usage
• outliers wtf?
– combination of missing logs due to papertrail lossiness, +
cicerone handling missing data poorly
• container creation takes increasing time?
– garden team tasked with investigation

30. Results
Problems can come from:
• our software
– throttled etcd client
– sequential calls to garden
• software we consume
– garden container creation
• “experiment apparatus” (tools and services):
– papertrail lossiness
– cicerone sloppiness
• language runtime
– Golang’s DNS behaviour

31. Results
Fixed what we could control, and now it’s all garden

32. Results
Okay, so far, that’s just been
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 1
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 2
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 5
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 10

33. Results
Next, the timelines of pushing 1k app instances

34. Results
• for the fastest pushes
– dominated by red, blue, gold
– i.e. upload source & CC emit “start”, staging process,
upload droplet
• pushes get slower
– growth in green, light blue, fucsia, teal
– i.e. schedule staging, create staging container,
schedule running, create running container
• main concern: why is scheduling slowing down?

35. Results
• we had a theory (blame app log chattiness)
• reproduced experiment in BOSH-Lite
– with chattiness turned on
– with chattiness turned off
• appeared to work better
• tried it on AWS
• no improvement 

36. Results
• spelunked through more logs
• SSH’d onto nodes and tried hitting services
• eventually pinpointed it:
– auctioneer asks cells for state
– cell reps ask garden for usage
– garden gets container disk usage  bottleneck

37. Results
Garden stops sending disk usage stats, scheduling time disappears

38. Results
Let’s let things stew between
and

39. Results
Right after all app pushes, decent workload distribution

40. Results
… an hour later, something pretty bad happened

41. Results
• cells heartbeat their presence to etcd
• if ttl expires, converger reschedules LRPs
• cells may reappear after their workloads have
been reassigned
• they remain underutilized
• but why do cells disappear in the first place?
• added more logging, hope to catch in n=2 round

42. Results
With the one lingering question about cell disappearnce, on to n=2
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 1
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 2
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 5
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 10
✓✓
✓ ✓
?

43. Results
With 800 concurrent task reqs, found container cleanup garden bug

44. Results
With 800-instance LRP, found API node request scheduling serially

45. Results
• we added a story to the garden backlog
• the serial request issue was an easy fix
• then, with n=2 parallel test-lab nodes, we
pushed 2x the apps
– things worked correctly
– system was performant as a whole
– but individual components showed signs of scale
issues

46. Results
Our “bulk durations” doubled

47. Results
• nsync fetches state from CC and etcd to make
sure CC desired state is reflected in diego
• converger fetches desired and actual state
from etcd to make sure things are consistent
• route-emitter fetches state from etcd to keep
gorouter in sync
• bulk loop times doubled from n=1

48. Results
… and this happened again

49. Results
– the etcd and consul story –

50. Results
Fast-forward to today
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 1
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 2
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 5
#1: #2:
#3: #4:
x 10
✓✓
✓ ✓
? ✓✓
✓ ✓
?
✓✓
✓ ✓
? ✓ ???

51. Bottom Line
At the highest scale:
• 4000 concurrent tasks ✓
• 4000-instance LRP ✓
• 10k “real app” instances @ 100 instances/cell:
– etcd (ephemeral data store) ✓
– consul (service discovery) ? (… it’s a long story)
– receptor (Diego API) ? (bulk JSON)
– nsync (CC desired state sync) ? (because of receptor)
– route-emitter (gorouter sync) ? (because of receptor)
– garden (containerizer) ✓
– rep (garden actual state sync) ✓
– auctioneer (scheduler) ✓

52. Next Steps
• Security
– mutual SSL between all components
– encrypting data-at-rest
• Versioning
– handle breaking API changes gracefully
– production hardening
• Optimize data models
– hand-in-hand with versioning
– shrink payload for bulk reqs
– investigate faster encodings; protobufs > JSON
– initial experiments show 100x speedup

53. Updates on .NET Support

54. Updates on .NET Support
• what’s currently supported?
– ASP.NET MVC
– nothing too exotic
– most CF/Diego features, e.g. security groups
– VisualStudio plugin, similar to the Eclipse CF plugin for
Java
• what are the limitations?
– some newer Diego features, e.g. SSH
– in α/β stage, dev-only

55. Updates on .NET Support
• what’s coming up?
– make it easier to deploy Windows cell
– more VisualStudio plugin features
– hardening testing/CI
• further down the line?
– remote debugging
– the “Spring experience”

56. Updates on .NET Support
• shout outs
– CenturyLink
– HP
• feedback & questions?
– Mark Kropf (PM): mkropf@pivotal.io
– David Morhovich (Lead): dmorhovich@pivotal.io