Docker vs kvm
•
2 likes•670 views
This document compares the performance of KVM and Docker instances in OpenStack. It finds that for boot and delete operations, KVM is around 20% faster than Docker at high concurrency levels. For CPU and memory tests at low concurrency, KVM is 2-10% slower than bare metal, while Docker is 2-5% slower. For sequential and random read/write file I/O tests, KVM is similar or slightly slower than bare metal, while Docker is slightly slower than KVM. Overall performance decreases for both KVM and Docker as concurrency increases.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Docker vs kvm
Similar to Docker vs kvm (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Docker vs kvm
- 1. A comparison of performance between KVM and Docker instances in OpenStack High Energy Accelerator Research Organiza�on (KEK), Japan 1 HEPiX Fall 2015 Workshop at BNL Wataru Takase
- 2. KEK site will become Cloudy 2 Integrate private cloud into batch service Deploy CVMFS Stratum 0 and 1 Start online storage service Batch scheduler Mediator Private cloud Job Resource request Request for launching instances Resource pool Launch Instances WN WN WN WN Job Batch worker nodes WN WN WN WN CVMFS mount mount Resource request Talk focuses on this part
- 3. Performance Inves�ga�on of Cloud Is virtual machine performance good? What about container technology? What about concurrency impact on performance? Measured KVM and Docker performance in OpenStack by using Rally – Cloud performance – Instance performance 3
- 4. KVM? Docker? 4 OpenStack (IaaS) Docker driver Libvirt driver h�ps://www.docker.com/wha�sdocker Each VM runs on virtual hardware Containers share host kernel and hardware KVM : VM hypervisor Docker : Container manger Bare Metal Driver VMWare Driver Xen API Driver
- 5. What is Rally? Benchmarking tool for OpenStack Generates real workload Provides more than 100 test scenarios: – Boot server and migrate it – Create image and boot server – Create volume and a�ach to server – … 5 --- NovaServers.boot_and_delete_server: - args: image: name: ”centos-cloud:7.1" flavor: name: "m1.xsmall" min_sleep: 60 max_sleep: 60 runner: type: "constant" times: 32 concurrency: 32 context: users: tenants: 1 users_per_tenant: 32 Example_of_rally_benchmark_input.yaml
- 6. Test environment 6 Physical server OS Kernel CPU CPU cores RAM (GB) Disk (GB) OpenStack controller CentOS 7.1.1503 3.10.0-‐229 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5649 x2 24* 32 300 OpenStack compute CentOS 7.1.1503 3.10.0-‐229 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-‐2630 v3 x2 32* 64 3800 Rally CentOS 7.1.1503 3.10.0-‐229 AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6212 8 16 1700 OS Kernel vCPU RAM (GB) Disk (GB) CentOS 7.1.1503 3.10.0-‐229 1 1.8 10 OpenStack Kilo (RDO) 1 controller + 1 compute node nova-‐network Rally (2d874a7) Sysbench 0.4.12 Instance image and flavor * HT is enabled
- 7. Test environment 7 File system XFS on LVM on hardware RAID 5 IO scheduler Deadline Clocksource TSC QEMU 1.5.3 libvirt 1.2.8 Docker 1.6.2 Nova Docker driver nova-‐docker stable/kilo (d556444) Image format qcow2 Block device deriver VirtIO Cache mode none File system XFS Clocksource TSC Storage driver OverlayFS Compute node KVM Docker
- 8. Benchmark Scenarios 1. Measure cloud performance – Boot a server and then delete 2. Measure instance performance – Boot a server and run Sysbench (test=cpu) – Boot a server and run Sysbench (test=memory, memory-‐oper=read) – Boot a server and run Sysbench (test=memory, memory-‐oper=write) – Boot a server and run Sysbench (test=fileio, file-‐test-‐mode=seqrd) – Boot a server and run Sysbench (test=fileio, file-‐test-‐mode=rndrd) – Boot a server and run Sysbench (test=fileio, file-‐test-‐mode=seqwr) – Boot a server and run Sysbench (test=fileio, file-‐test-‐mode=rndwr) Each scenario launches 32 instances – Change number of concurrent requests from 1 to 32 8
- 9. Boot a server and then delete 9 Building OpenStack Request x 32 Building OpenStack Request Concurrent requests: 32 Building Building Request Request ... ... Building Request Concurrent requests: 1 Wai�ng for ping, ssh Networking �me Ac�ve Wai�ng for ping, ssh Networking �me Wai�ng for ping, ssh Wai�ng for ping, ssh Wai�ng for ping, ssh Wait 60 sec Dele�ng Dele�ng �me Building �me Wait 60 sec Wait 60 sec Wait 60 sec Wait 60 sec Dele�ng Dele�ng Dele�ng Dele�ng Dele�ng �me Building �me Deleted
- 10. Build a server 10 At high concurrency KVM is around 20% be�er N: 96 Error bar: SD
- 11. 11 Wait for Networking Boot OS + cloud-‐init N: 96 Error bar: SD cloud-‐init + Start sshd
- 12. Building + Networking 12 N: 96 Error bar: SD
- 13. 13 Delete a server N: 96 Error bar: SD
- 14. Instance Performance Comparison 14 Wai�ng for ping, ssh Building OpenStack Request x 32 Wai�ng for ping, ssh Building OpenStack Request Concurrent requests: 32 Wai�ng for ping, ssh Building Wai�ng for ping, ssh Building Request Request ... ... Wai�ng for ping, ssh Building Request Concurrent requests: 1 Sysbench Sysbench Sysbench Sysbench Sysbench Wait Measure performance Dele�ng Wait Wait Wait Wait Dele�ng Dele�ng Measure performance
- 15. test=cpu, cpu-‐max-‐prime=20000, num-‐ threads=1 15 At low concurrency KVM is 2-‐7% worse than na�ve If No. of concurrent requests > 2, Docker is 2% worse than na�ve N: 32 Error bar: SD
- 16. 16 test=memory, memory-‐oper=read, memory-‐block-‐size=1K, memory-‐total-‐size=100G, max-‐�me=300, num-‐threads=1 test=memory, memory-‐oper=write, memory-‐block-‐size=1K, memory-‐total-‐size=100G, max-‐�me=300, num-‐threads=1 At low concurrency KVM is 3-‐10% worse than na�ve Docker is 2-‐5% worse than na�ve (concurrent requests: 1-‐16) N: 32 Error bar: SD
- 17. 17 test=fileio, file-‐test-‐mode=seqrd, file-‐block-‐size=4K, file-‐total-‐size=8G, file-‐ num=128, file-‐extra-‐flags=direct, max-‐�me=300, num-‐threads=1 test=fileio, file-‐test-‐mode=rndrd, file-‐block-‐size=4K, file-‐total-‐size=8G, file-‐ num=128, file-‐extra-‐flags=direct, max-‐�me=300, num-‐threads=1 At low concurrency KVM sequen�al read is 60-‐70% worse than na�ve KVM random read is several % worse than na�ve Docker achieves na�ve performance N: 32 Error bar: SD
- 18. 18 test=fileio, file-‐test-‐mode=seqwr, file-‐block-‐size=4K, file-‐total-‐size=8G, file-‐ num=128, file-‐extra-‐flags=direct, max-‐�me=300, num-‐threads=1 test=fileio, file-‐test-‐mode=rndwr, file-‐block-‐size=4K, file-‐total-‐size=8G, file-‐ num=128, file-‐extra-‐flags=direct, max-‐�me=300, num-‐threads=1 At low concurrency KVM is 70-‐80% worse than na�ve In the case of single request, Docker sequen�al write is 15% worse than na�ve Beside that Docker achieves almost na�ve performance N: 32 Error bar: SD
- 19. Summary and Conclusion 19 Cloud performance comparison – Docker instance becomes ready faster than KVM (building + networking) Instance performance comparison – CPU and memory performance Na�ve > Docker > KVM – KVM File IO performance is poor compared to na�ve – Docker Read performance is almost the same as na�ve Write performance is near na�ve Docker seems to be a good candidate in the future – Nova-‐docker driver lacks some features and has some bugs More inves�ga�on is needed – Security – Stability – Other benchmarks (network, volume, tuned KVM)