Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Efficient Scheduler for Electronic Funds Tranfer (EFT) Scenarios
Similar to Efficient Scheduler for Electronic Funds Tranfer (EFT) Scenarios (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Efficient Scheduler for Electronic Funds Tranfer (EFT) Scenarios
- 1. LoadEFT: Efficient Scheduler Proposal for Electronic Funds Transfer Companies Tiago Nascimento, Cristiano André da Costa, Rodrigo da Rosa Righi CLEI 2014 - Conferencia Latinoamericana em Informática Contact: rrrighi@unisinos.br
- 2. Agenda • Introduction • LoadEFT • Evaluation Methodology • Results • Conclusion
- 3. Introduction Electronic medias for payment operations have become mainstream, instead of using money in currency paper and check. After arriving in the service provider company, transactions are received by a switch that acts as a scheduler responsible for assigning them to processing machines.
- 4. Introduction The standard mechanism for mapping transactions to PMs is based on the Round-Robin algorithm, which schedules a list of resources in a circular fashion. Round-Robin achieves the Optimum schedule when all transactions present a single type, with the same CPU and I/O requirements among themselves, and PMs are built with the same pieces of hardware and present the same software configuration. T1 SchedulerT2T3T4T5 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Homogeneous Transactions (T) Homogeneous Processing Machines (PM) Round-Robin Optimal Scheduling 500 flops 1 GHz T1 T5. . . PM1 PM4. . . Legend
- 5. Introduction Nevertheless, the Round-Robin scheduling approach may not be the best alternative when either dynamic or heterogeneous systems are involved. In spite of the disadvantages explained earlier, many transaction processing companies still use a Round- Robin-based scheduling.
- 6. T1 SchedulerT2T3T4T5 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Heterogeneous Transactions (T) Heterogeneous Processing Machines (PM) GetLB Scheduling T1 T4 T2 T3 T5 PM1 PM3 PM2 PM4 500 flops 1 GHz 1000 flops 500 MHz Legend T1 SchedulerT2T3T4T5 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Heterogenenous Transactions (T) Homogeneous Processing Machines (PM) Round-Robin Scheduling 1 GHzPM1 PM4. . . T1 T4 T2 T3 T5 500 flops 1000 flops Legend Introduction EFT works with heterogeneous transactions Heterogeneity on transactions Heterogeneity on resources
- 7. Introduction T1 Slice1 T1 Slice2 T1 Slice3 T2 Slice2 T2 Slice1 T1 Slice1 T1 Slice2 T1 Slice3 T2 Slice1 T2 Slice2 Transactions Flow Dispatcher Processing Machines Example of Scheduling T1 Company1 T2 Company1 T3 Company1 T4 Company2 T1 Company1 T2 Company1 T3 Company1 T4 Company2 Dispatcher Processing Machines Example of Scheduling Transactions Flow Technical Problems Allocation for companies Packet-based scheduling
- 8. Introduction LoadEFT: Load balancing model for Electronic Funds Transfer Systems Dynamic Data about transactions and processing machines Performance center to save data about the targets Simple prediction using moving averages Overcome technical problems
- 9. LoadEFT Internet User Cluster Frontend server Virtual Servers 192.168.0.1: 80 Cluster Web 192.168.0.1: 443 Cluster SSL 192.168.0.1: 23 Cluster Telnet Machine 172.16.1.11 Services 172.16.1.11:80 Machine 172.16.1.12 Machine 172.16.1.13 Machine 172.16.1.14 Services 172.16.1.12:80 172.16.1.12:443 Services 172.16.1.13:80 172.16.1.13:23 Services 172.16.1.14:80 172.16.1.14:23 172.16.1.14:443 External Network: 192.168.0.10 Internal Network: 172.16.1.1 Machine 192.168.0.2 Idea: Use of Virtual Servers - Single point of entrance
- 10. LoadEFT Driver Load Balancer Driver Authorizer Driver Authorizer Driver Authorizer Performance Center Event Manager Scalability Control Auxiliary Services Transactions Waiting Response Answered Transactions Authorizers Performance Shared-Memory Region MTD Scheduler Load Balancing Socket ConnectionAccess to the Shared-Memory Communication FlowLegend Architecture
- 11. Evaluation Methodology 4800 transactions Cluster Type Host 1 Host 2 Host 3 Host 4 Homogeneous 20 20 20 20 Heterogeneous 10 20 40 10 Debit and credit transactions Timeout of 7 seconds Conditions
- 12. Results Homogeneous cluster Round-Robin LoadEFTMapping of transactions
- 13. Results Heterogeneous cluster Round-Robin LoadEFT Mapping of transactions
- 14. Results Number of both successfully answered transactions and timeouts
- 15. Conclusion Importance of load-balancing at runtime Time is one of the most important factors on users’ experience EFT is a heterogeneous system, so Round-Robin is not the most suitable option for such systems. Scheduling Scheduling calculus Scheduling Quality LoadEFT presents better performance on heterogeneous resources = +
- 16. LoadEFT: Efficient Scheduler Proposal for Electronic Funds Transfer Companies Tiago Nascimento, Cristiano André da Costa, Rodrigo da Rosa Righi CLEI 2014 - Conferencia Latinoamericana em Informática Contact: rrrighi@unisinos.br