QAAS: quick accurate auto-scaling for streaming processing

Abstract

In recent years, the demand for real-time data processing has been increasing, and various stream processing systems have emerged. When the amount of data input to the stream processing system fluctuates, the computing resources required by the stream processing job will also change. The resources used by stream processing jobs need to be adjusted according to load changes, avoiding the waste of computing resources. At present, existing works adjust stream processing jobs based on the assumption that there is a linear relationship between the operator parallelism and operator resource consumption (e.g., throughput), which makes a significant deviation when the operator parallelism increases. This paper proposes a nonlinear model to represent operator performance. We divide the operator performance into three stages, the Non-competition stage, the Non-full competition stage, and the Full competition stage. Using our proposed performance model, given the parallelism of the operator, we can accurately predict the CPU utilization and operator throughput. Evaluated with actual experiments, the prediction error of our model is below 5%. We also propose a quick accurate auto-scaling (QAAS) method that uses the operator performance model to implement the auto-scaling of the operator parallelism of the Flink job. Compared to previous work, QAAS is able to maintain stable job performance under load changes, minimizing the number of job adjustments and reducing data backlogs by 50%.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

stream processing / performance model / auto-scaling

References

[1] Vastardis N, Yang K. Mobile social networks: architectures, social properties, and key research challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2013, 15( 3): 1355–1371

[2] Chen H, Chiang R H L, Storey V C. Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 2012, 36( 4): 1165–1188

[3] Carbone P, Katsifodimos A, Ewen S, Markl V, Haridi S, Tzoumas K. Apache flink^TM: stream and batch processing in a single engine. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 2015, 38( 4): 28–38

[4] Kulkarni S, Bhagat N, Fu M, Kedigehalli V, Kellogg C, Mittal S, Patel J M, Ramasamy K, Taneja S. Twitter heron: stream processing at scale. In: Proceedings of 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 2015, 239−250

[5] Toshniwal A, Taneja S, Shukla A, Ramasamy K, Patel J M, Kulkarni S, Jackson J, Gade K, Fu M, Donham J, Bhagat N, Mittal S, Ryaboy D. Storm@twitter. In: Proceedings of 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 2014, 147−156

[6] Song Y, Li Y, Yang H, Xu J, Luan Z, Li W. Adaptive watermark generation mechanism based on time series prediction for stream processing. Frontiers of Computer Science, 2021, 15( 6): 156213

[7] Kahveci B, Gedik B. Joker: elastic stream processing with organic adaptation. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 2020, 137: 205–223

[8] Kalim F, Cooper T, Wu H, Li Y, Wang N, Lu N, Fu M, Qian X, Luo H, Cheng D, Wang Y, Dai F, Ghosh M, Wang B. Caladrius: a performance modelling service for distributed stream processing systems. In: Proceedings of the 35th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). 2019, 1886−1897

[9] Kalavri V, Liagouris J, Hoffmann M, Dimitrova D C, Forshaw M, Roscoe T. Three steps is all you need: fast, accurate, automatic scaling decisions for distributed streaming dataflows. In: Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation. 2018, 783−798

[10] Mei Y, Cheng L, Talwar V, Levin M Y, Jacques-Silva G, Simha N, Banerjee A, Smith B, Williamson T, Yilmaz S, Chen W, Chen G J. Turbine: Facebook’s service management platform for stream processing. In: Proceedings of the 36th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). 2020, 1591−1602

[11] Kreps J, Narkhede N, Rao J. Kafka: a distributed messaging system for log processing. In: Proceedings of the NetDB. 2011, 1−7

[12] Burns B, Grant B, Oppenheimer D, Brewer E, Wilkes J. Borg, omega, and kubernetes. Communications of the ACM, 2016, 59( 5): 50–57

[13] Vavilapalli V K, Murthy A C, Douglas C, Agarwal S, Konar M, Evans R, Graves T, Lowe J, Shah H, Seth S, Saha B, Curino C, O’Malley O, Radia S, Reed B, Baldeschwieler E. Apache hadoop YARN: yet another resource negotiator. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Cloud Computing. 2013, 5

[14] Röger H, Mayer R. A comprehensive survey on parallelization and elasticity in stream processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 2020, 52( 2): 36

[15] Floratou A, Agrawal A, Graham B, Rao S, Ramasamy K. Dhalion: self-regulating stream processing in heron. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2017, 10( 12): 1825–1836

[16] Marangozova-Martin V, de Palma N, El Rheddane A. Multi-level elasticity for data stream processing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2019, 30( 10): 2326–2337

[17] Arkian H, Pierre G, Tordsson J, Elmroth E. An experiment-driven performance model of stream processing operators in fog computing environments. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. 2020, 1763−1771

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press