Lecture 6 - Other Distributed Systems CSE 490h – Introduction to Distributed Computing, Spring...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Lecture 6 - Other Distributed Systems CSE 490h – Introduction to Distributed Computing, Spring...
Lecture 6 - Other Distributed Systems
CSE 490h – Introduction to Distributed Computing, Spring 2007
Except as otherwise noted, the content of this presentation is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Domain Name System
Mnemonic identifiers work considerably better for humans than IP addresses
“www.google.com? Surely you mean 66.102.7.99!”
Who maintains the mappings from nameIP?
In the beginning…
Every machine had a file named hosts.txt Each line contained a name/IP mapping New hosts files were updated and
distributed via email
… This clearly wasn’t going to scale
DNS Implementations
Modern DNS system first proposed in 1983
First implementation in 1984 (Paul Mockapetris)
BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) written by four Berkeley students in 1985.
Many other implementations today
Hierarchical Naming
DNS names are arranged in a hierarchy:
www.cs.washington.edu
Entries are either subdomains or hostnames subdomains contain more subdomains, or
hosts (up to 127 levels deep!) Hosts have individual IP addresses
Mechanics: Theory
DNS Recurser (client) parses address from right to left
Asks root server (with known, static IP address) for name of first subdomain DNS server
Contacts successive DNS servers until it finds the host
Mechanics: In Practice
ISPs provide a DNS recurser for clients DNS recursers cache lookups for period of
time after a request
Greatly speeds up retrieval of entries and reduces system load
What is BOINC?
“Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing”
Platform for Internet-wide distributed applications
Volunteer computing infrastructureRelies on many far-flung users volunteering
spare CPU power
Some Facts
1,000,000+ active nodes 521 TFLOPS of computing power 20 active projects (SETI@Home,
Folding@Home, Malaria Control…) and several more in development
(Current as of March 2007)
Comparison to MapReduce
Both are frameworks on which “useful” systems can be built
Does not prescribe particular programming style
Much more heterogeneous architecture Does not have a formal aggregation step Designed for much longer-running
systems (months/years vs. minutes/hours)
Architecture
Central server runs LAMP architecture for web + database
End-users run client application with modules for actual computation
BitTorrent used to distribute data elements efficiently
System Features
Homogenous redundancy Work unit “trickling” Locality scheduling Distribution based on host parameters
Client software
Available as regular application, background “service”, or screensaver
Can be administered locally or LAN-administered via RPC
Can be configured to use only “low priority” cycles
Client/Task Interaction
Client software runs on variety of operating systems, each with different IPC
Uses shared memory message passing to transmit information from “manager” to actual tasks and vice versa
Why Participate?
Sense of accomplishment, community involvement, or scientific duty
Stress testing machines/networks Potential for fame (if your computer “finds”
an alien planet, you can name it!) “Bragging rights” for computing more units
“BOINC Credits”
Credit & Cobblestones
Work done is rewarded with “cobblestones” 100 cobblestones = 1 day of CPU time for a
computer with performance equaling 1,000 double-precision floating-point MIPS (Whetstone) & 1,000 integer VAX MIPS (Dhrystone)
Computers are benchmarked by the BOINC system and receive credit appropriate to their machine
Anti-Cheating Measures
Work units are computed redundantly by several different machines, and results are compared by the central server for consistency
Credit is awarded after the internal server validates the returned work units
Work units must be returned before a deadline
Conclusions Versatile infrastructure
SETI tasks take a few hoursClimate simulation tasks take monthsNetwork monitoring tasks are not CPU-bound at all!
Scales extremely well to internet-wide applications Provides another flexible middleware layer to
base distributed applications on Volunteer computing comes with add’l
considerations (rewards, cheating)
What if you wanted to:
Test a new version of Bittorrent that might generate GB’s and GB’s of data?
Design a new distributed hashtable algorithm for thousands of nodes?
Create a gigantic caching structure that mirrored web pages in several sites across the USA?
Problem Similarities
Each of these problems requires: Hundreds or thousands of servers Geographic distribution An isolated network for testing and controlled
experiments Developing one-off systems to support these
would be Costly Redundant
PlanetLab
A multi-university effort to build a network for large-scale simulation, testing, and research
“Simulate the Internet”
Usage Stats
Servers: 722+ Slices: 600+ Users: 2500+ Bytes-per-day: 3 - 4 TB IP-flows-per-day: 190M Unique IP-addrs-per-day: 1M
As of Fall, 2006
Project Goals
Supports short- and long-term research goals
System put up “as fast as possible” – PlanetLab design evolves over time to meet changing needs PlanetLab is a process, not a result
Simultaneous Research
Projects must be isolated from one another Code from several researchers:
Untrustworthy? Possibly buggy? Intellectual property issues?
Time-sensitive experiments must not interfere with one another
Must provide realistic workload simulations
Architecture
Built on Linux, ssh, other standard toolsProvides “normal” environment for application
development Hosted at multiple universities w/ separate
adminsRequires trust relationships with respect to
previous goals
Architecture (cont.)
Network is divided into “slices” – server pools created out of virtual machines
Trusted intermediary “PLC” system grants access to network resourcesAllows universities to specify who can use
slices at each siteDistributed trust relationships Central system control Federated control
Resource allocation PLC authenticates users and understands relationships
between principals; issues tickets SHARP system at site validates ticket + returns lease
PLC
User
request
ticket
slice
ticket
lease
User Verification
Public-key cryptography used to sign modules entered into PlanetLabX.509 + SSL keys are used by PLC + slices to
verify user authenticityKeys distributed “out of band” ahead of time
Final Thoughts
Large system with complex relationships Currently upgrading to version 4.0 New systems (GENI) are being proposed Still provides lots of resources to
researchersCoralCache, several other projects run on
PlanetLab
OLPC
“They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.”
The Internet is a series of tubes
The internet is composed of a lot of infrastructure:Clients and serversRouters and switchesFiber optic trunk lines, telephone lines, tubes
and trucks And if we map the density of this
infrastructure…
How do we distribute knowledge when there are no tubes? What if we wanted to share a book?
Pass it along, door-to-door. What if we wanted to share 10,000 books?
Build community library. How about 10 million books? Or 300
copies of one book?A very large library?
Solutions We need to build infrastructure to make
large-scale distribution easy (i.e., computers and networking equipment)
We need to be cheapMost of those dark spots don’t have much money
We need reliability where reliable power is costlyAgain, did you notice that there weren’t so many
lights? It’s because there’s no electricity!
The traditional solution: a shared computer with Internet India
75% of people in rural villages 90% of phones in urban areas
Many villagers share a single phone, usually located in the town post office
Likewise, villages typically share a few computers, located at the school (or somewhere with reliable power)
What’s the downside to this model? It might provide shared access to a lot of information,
but it doesn’t solve the “300 copies of a book” case
The distributed solution: the XO
AKA: Children’s Machine, OLPC, $100 laptop A cheap (~$150) laptop designed for children in
developing countries
• OLPC = One Laptop Per Child.
Photo: laptop.org
XO design
Low power consumptionNo moving parts (flash memory, passive cooling)Dual-mode display
In color, the XO consumes 2-3 watts In high-contrast monochrome, less than 1 watt
Can be human powered by a foot-pedal Rugged, child-friendly design Low material costs Open-source software
XO networking
The XO utilizes far-reaching, low-power wireless networking to create ad-hoc mesh networks If any single XO is connected to the Internet,
other nearby computers can share the connection in a peer-to-peer scheme
Networks can theoretically sprawl as far as ten miles, even connecting nearby villages
XO storage and sharing
XO relies on network for content and collaborationContent is stored on a central servers
Textbooks Cached websites (Wikipedia) User content
Software makes it easy to see other users on the network and share content
XO distribution
XO must be purchased in orders of 1 million units by governments in developing nations (economies of scale help to lower costs)
Governments are responsible for distribution of laptops
Laptops are only for children, designed solely as a tool for learning
XO downfalls
Distribution downfalls What about children in developed nations?
Sell to developed markets at a higher price to subsidize costs for developing nations.
Can governments effectively distribute? What about black markets?
OLPC could perhaps partner with local schools and other NGOs to aid in distribution, training and maintenance
Too expensive? Some nations can only afford as much $20 per child
per year. How can we cater to them?
What can the XO achieve?
Today, only 16 percent of the world’s population is estimated to have access to the Internet
Develop new markets Microcredit
Make small loans to the impoverished without requiring collateral
Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for their work here
The power of the village economy As millions of users come online in developing nations, there
will be many new opportunities for commerce. Helps those in developing nations to advance their economies
and develop stronger economic models
Why give the XO to children?
UN Millennium Development Goal #2: “achieve universal primary education”
Empower children to think and compete in a global spaceChildren are a nations greatest resourceBacked by a bolstered economy, they will
grow to solve other issues (infrastructure, poverty, famine)
The Course Again (in 5 minutes)
So what did we see in this class?Moore’s law is starting to failMore computing power means more
machinesThis means breaking problems into sub
problems Sub-problems cannot interfere with or depend on
one another Have to “play nice” with shared memory
MapReduce
MapReduce is one paradigm for breaking problems upMakes the “playing nice” easy by enforcing a
decoupled programming modelHandles lots of the behind-the-scenes work
Distributed Systems & Networks
The network is a fundamental part of a distributed systemHave to plan for bandwidth, latency, etc
We’d like to think of the network as an abstractionSockets = pipesRPC looks like a normal procedure call,
handles tricky stuff under the hood Still have to plan for failures of all kinds
Distributed Filesystems
The network allows us to make data available across many machinesNetwork file systems can hook into existing
infrastructureSpecialized file systems (like GFS) can offer
better performance with loss of generality Raises issues of concurrency, process
isolation, and how to combat stale data