Characterizing Microservice Dependency and Performance: Alibaba Trace Analysis

-

This paper got the best paper award at SOCC 2021. The paper conducts a comprehensive study of large scale microservices deployed in Alibaba clusters.  They analyze the behavior of more than 20,000 microservices in a 7-day period and profile their characteristics based on the 10 billion call traces collected. They find that:

  • microservice graphs are dynamic in runtime
  • most graphs are scattered to grow like a tree
  • size of call graphs follows a heavy-tail distribution

Based on their findings, they offer some practical tips about improving microservice runtime performance. They also develop a stochastic model to simulate microservice call graph dependencies and show that it approximates the dataset they collected (which is available at https://github.com/alibaba/clusterdata).

What are microservices?

Microservices is a software development approach that divides an application into independently deployable services, owned by small teams organized around business capabilities. Each service communicates through well-defined APIs, making the application easier to scale and faster to develop. In contrast, monolithic architectures tightly couple all processes as a single service, and may make it difficult to add or improve features and experiment. Thanks to their decoupled architecture, microservices allow for rapid and frequent deployment of services, enable innovation and accelerate time-to-market for new features, while reducing unavailability.

This is when things work well. Often things are not that clean. Galactus, the all knowing user-service-provider-aggregator, expects a time range from EKS, which is being deprecated to OmegaStar, which still doesn't support ISO timestamps. And unless OmegaStar gets its fucking shit together, everything is blocked. You think you know what it takes to tell the user it's their birthday? You know nothing!

Alibaba trace overview

A microservice runs over multiple containers. A call to a frontend microservice triggers calls to other microservices, and so on. In the resulting call graph, each edge connects an upstream microservice (UM) to a downstream microservice (DM) it calls. The response time (RT) of a call is the time between the UM calling its DM to it receiving the response.

Alibaba clusters use Kubernetes to manage the bare-metal machines. Online services (e.g., microservices) and offline batch jobs coexist in the same bare-metal node to increase resource utilization. Stateful services (i.e., database and Memcached) are deployed in a dedicated cluster.

Microservice call graph properties

The size of microservice call graphs follows a heavy-tail distribution. Around 10% of call graphs consist of more than 40 microservice stages. The largest call graph can consist of even hundreds to thousands of microservices. For call graphs containing more than 40 microservices, about 50% of their microservices are Memcacheds (MCs).


How about the depth of the call graphs? Figure 3(b)  shows that the depth peaks quickly at height=3 as microservices query hot data cached in MCs directly. That said, more than 4% of call graphs present a call depth of more than 10.

 

A microservice call graph is topologically similar to a tree. In Alibaba's microservice traces, a majority of nodes have in-degrees of one. More than 10% of stateless microservices have an out-degree of greater than 4. A non-negligible fraction of microservices are hot-spots. As shown in Figure 4, more than 5% of microservices have in-degrees of 16 in aggregate calls. These super microservices appear in nearly 90% of call graphs and handle 95% of total invocations.

Microservices can form highly dynamic call dependencies in runtime. In an extreme case, the same online service can have more than nine classes of topologically different graphs as shown in Figure 6. (These different classes of graph topologies was identified by a K-means clustering algorithm.)

The call patterns of stateless microservices vary a lot over tiers. A noticeable fraction of stateless microservices are blackholes since they have no DM. The rest of microservices (or normals) shall call their DMs with a certain probability. As shown in Fig. 8(a), the percentage of black holes (respectively, relays) increases (respectively, decreases) with the call depth growing. It is quite challenging to simulate production call graphs using simple mathematical models. The authors build a stochastic model to simulate the dynamic dependencies between microservices, and show that this closely approximates the dataset they collected. In contrast, they say the previous open-sourced microservice benchmarks fail to preserve microservice call graph properties since their call graph sizes are quite small and the produced graph topologies do not change much.

Figure 8(b) shows that the percentage of communications between stateless microservices and Memcacheds (i.e., S2M) reduces linearly in call depth when the depth is above three. This indicates the cache miss rate of queries increases quickly as call graphs get deeper. When the data misses a hit in caches, the query is sent to the database service.


Microservice run time performance

A noticeable fraction of pairs have strong coupled dependency and their interfaces can be coupled together for performance optimization. Fig 10 shows the distribution of the product of Call Time and Call Probability.
More than 10% of the pairs of microservices have a product >=5, implying that a lot of microservice pairs in Alibaba clusters have a strong coupled dependency. 17% of these pairs with strong coupled dependency do not share DM with any other microservice. For these pairs, coupling the called interface of DM with the corresponding interface of UM together can substantially reduce the communication overhead since coupling can replace a remote call with a local self-call and reduce network traffic.

Figure 12 shows that microservice call rates highly correlate with CPU utilization and Java young generation garbage collection (Young GC) but not with memory utilization. This implies that CPU utilization and Young GCs are much better indicators of resource pressures of microservice containers compared to memory utilization. Memory utilization is almost stable at runtime in most containers in Alibaba microservice traces (with a variance of less than 10%).

Response time (RT) can be greatly degraded due to high host CPU utilization. When the host CPU utilization exceeds 40% (or respectively 80%), the RT of a microservice can be degraded by more than 20% (respectively 30%) in average. The host memory utilization has a much lighter impact on the RT. When the host memory utilization is below 60%, the interference can be ignored. These results indicate most online microservices are sensitive to CPU interference and there is a strong demand for a more efficient resource scheduler that can well balance the CPU utilization across different hosts. Traces show that the variance of CPU utilization across hosts in each minute can be as high as 20%, implying there is an opportunity to balance the batch workload across hosts better.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hints for Distributed Systems Design

-
This is with apologies to Butler Lampson, who published the " Hints for computer system design " paper 40 years ago in SOSP'83. I don't claim to match that work of course. I just thought I could draft this post to organize my thinking about designing distributed systems and get feedback from others. I start with the same  disclaimer Lampson gave. These hints are not novel, not foolproof recipes, not laws of design, not precisely formulated, and not always appropriate. They are just hints.  They are context dependent, and some of them may be controversial. That being said, I have seen these hints successfully applied in distributed systems design throughout my 25 years in the field, starting from the theory of distributed systems (98-01), immersing into the practice of wireless sensor networks (01-11), and working on cloud computing systems both in the academia and industry ever since. These heuristic principles have been applied knowingly or unknowingly and has proven...
Read more >>

Learning about distributed systems: where to start?

-
This is definitely not a "learn distributed systems in 21 days" post. I recommend a principled, from the foundations-up, studying of distributed systems, which will take a good three months in the first pass, and many more months to build competence after that. If you are practical and coding oriented you may not like my advice much. You may object saying, "Shouldn't I learn distributed systems with coding and hands on? Why can I not get started by deploying a Hadoop cluster, or studying the Raft code." I think that is the wrong way to go about learning distributed systems, because seeing similar code and programming language constructs will make you think this is familiar territory, and will give you a false sense of security. But, nothing can be further from the truth. Distributed systems need radically different software than centralized systems do.  --A. Tannenbaum This quotation is literally the first sentence in my distributed systems syllabus. Inst...
Read more >>

Making database systems usable

-
Image
C. J. Date's Sigmod 1983 keynote, "Database Usability", was prescient. Usability is the most important thing to the customers. They care less about impressive benchmarks or clever algorithms, and more about whether they can operate and use a database efficiently to query, update, analyze, and persist their data with minimal headache. (BTW, does anyone have a link to the contents of this Sigmod'83 talk? There is no transcript around, except for this short abstract .) The paper we cover today is from Sigmod 2007. It takes on the database usability problem raised in that 1983 keynote head-on, and calls out that the king is still naked.  Let's give some context for the year 2007. Yes, XML format was still popular then. The use-case in the paper is XQuery. The paper does not contain any  reference to json. MongoDB would be released in 2009 with the document model; and that seems to be great timing for some of the usability pains mentioned in the paper! Web 2.0 was in ...
Read more >>

Looming Liability Machines (LLMs)

-
As part of our zoom reading group ( wow, 4.5 years old now ), we discussed a paper that uses LLMs for automatic root cause analysis (RCA) for cloud incidents. This was a pretty straightforward application of LLMs. The proposed system employs an LLM to match incoming incidents to incident handlers based on their alert types, predicts the incident's root cause category, and provides an explanatory narrative. The only customization is through prompt-engineering. Since this is a custom domain, I think a more principled and custom-designed  machine learning system would be more appropriate rather than adopting LLMs. Anyways, the use of LLMs for RCAs spooked me vicerally. I couldn't find the exact words during the paper discussion, but I can articulate this better now. Let me explain. RCA is serious business Root cause analysis (RCA) is the process of identifying the underlying causes of a problem/incident, rather than just addressing its symptoms. One RCA heuristic is asking 5 Why...
Read more >>

Foundational distributed systems papers

-
I talked about the importance of reading foundational papers last week. To followup, here is my compilation of foundational papers in the distributed systems area. (I focused on the core distributed systems area, and did not cover networking, security, distributed ledgers, verification work etc. I even left out distributed transactions, I hope to cover them at a later date.)  I classified the papers by subject, and listed them in chronological order. I also listed expository papers and blog posts at the end of each section. Time and State in Distributed Systems Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Leslie Lamport, Commn. of the ACM,  1978. Distributed Snapshots: Determining Global States of a Distributed System. K. Mani Chandy Leslie Lamport, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 1985. Virtual Time and Global States of Distributed Systems.  Mattern, F. 1988. Practical uses of synchronized clocks in distributed systems. B. Liskov, 1991. Exp...
Read more >>

Advice to the young

-
Image
I notice I haven't written any advice posts recently. Here is a collection of my advice posts pre 2020. I've been feeling all this elderly wisdom pent up in me, ready to pour at any moment. So here it goes. Get ready to quench your thirst from my fount of wisdom. No man, think for yourself, only get what works for you. It is called foundations, not theory Foundations of computer science (or rather any field of study) are the most important topics you can learn. These lay down the frame of thinking/perspective for that area of study. Yet, I am saddened to hear these called as "theory", and labeled as "unpractical". This couldn't be farther from the truth. Take a look at how I recommend studying distributed systems . Don't you dare call this "theory" and "unpractical". This lays the bedrock that you build your practice on. Don't skimp on the foundations. Don't build your home on quicksand. Keep your hands dirty, your mind cl...
Read more >>

Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects

-
Image
This paper is from Herlihy and Wing appeared in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1990. This is the canonical reference for the linearizability definition. I had not read this paper in detail before, so I thought it would be good to go to the source to see if there are additional delightful surprises in the original text. Hence, this post. I will dive into a technical analysis of the paper first, and then discuss some of my takes toward the end. I had written an accessible explanation of linearizability earlier; you may want to read that first. I will assume an understanding of linearizability to keep this review at reasonable length. Introduction I love how the old papers just barge in with the model, without bothered by pleasantries such as motivation of the problem. These are the first two sentences of the introduction. "A concurrent system consists of a collection of sequential processes that communicate through shared typed objects . This model encompass...
Read more >>

Understanding the Performance Implications of Storage-Disaggregated Databases

-
Image
Storage-compute disaggregation in databases has emerged as a pivotal architecture in cloud environments, as evidenced by Amazon ( Aurora ), Microsoft ( Socrates ), Google (AlloyDB), Alibaba ( PolarDB ), and Huawei (Taurus). This approach decouples compute from storage, allowing for independent and elastic scaling of compute and storage resources. It provides fault-tolerance at the storage level. You can then share the storage for other services, such as adding read-only replicas for the databases. You can even use the storage level for easier sharding of your database. Finally, you can also use this for exporting a changelog asynchronously to feed into peripheral cloud services, such as analytics. Disaggregated architecture was the topic of Sigmod 23 panel . I think this quote summarizes the industry's thinking on the topic. "Disaggregated architecture is here, and is not going anywhere. In a disaggregated architecture, storage is fungible, and computing scales independently. ...
Read more >>

Scalable OLTP in the Cloud: What’s the BIG DEAL?

-
Image
This paper is from Pat Helland, the apostate philosopher of database systems, overall a superb person, and a good friend of mine. The paper appeared this week at CIDR'24. (Check out the program for other interesting papers). The motivating question behind this work is: " What are the asymptotic limits to scale for cloud OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) systems? " Pat says that the CIDR 2023 paper "Is Scalable OLTP in the Cloud a Solved Problem?" prompted this question.  The answer to the question? Pat says that the answer lies in the joint responsibility of database and the application. If you know of Pat's work, which I have summarized several in this blog , you would know that Pat has been advocating along these lines before. But this paper provides a very crisp, specific, concrete answer. Read on for my summary of the paper. Disclaimer: This is a wisdom and technical information/detail packed 13-page paper, so I will try my best to summarize the sa...
Read more >>

Designing Data Intensive Applications (DDIA) Book

-
Image
We started reading this book as part of Alex Petrov's book club . We just got started, so you can join us, by joining the discord channel above. We meet Wednesday's 11am Eastern Time.  Previously we had read transaction processing book by Grey and Reuters. This page links to my summaries of that book. Chp 1. Reliable, Scalable, and Maintainable Applications I love the diagrams opening each chapter. Beautiful! The first chapter consists of warm up stuff. It talks about the definitions of reliabilty, scalability, and maintainability. It is still engaging, because  it is written with an educator and technical blogger voice, rather than a dry academic voice. This book came out on 2017. Martin is working on the new version. So if you have comments for things to focus on for the new version, it would be helpful to collect them in a document and email it to Martin. For example, I am curious about how the below paragraph from the Preface will get revised with 8 more years of hindsight...
Read more >>