Azure Kubernetes CPU multithreading - multithreading

I wish to run the Spring batch application in Azure Kubernetes.
At present, my on-premise VM has the below configuration
CPU Speed: 2,593
CPU Cores: 4
My application uses multithreading(~15 threads)
how do I define the CPU in AKS.
resources:
limits:
cpu: "4"
requests:
cpu: "0.5"
args:
- -cpus
- "4"
Reference: Kubernetes CPU multithreading
AKS Node Pool:

First of all, please note that Kubernetes CPU is an absolute unit:
Limits and requests for CPU resources are measured in cpu units. One
cpu, in Kubernetes, is equivalent to 1 vCPU/Core for cloud providers
and 1 hyperthread on bare-metal Intel processors.
CPU is always requested as an absolute quantity, never as a relative
quantity; 0.1 is the same amount of CPU on a single-core, dual-core,
or 48-core machine
In other words, a CPU value of 1 corresponds to using a single core continiously over time.
The value of resources.requests.cpu is used during scheduling and ensures that the sum of all requests on a single node is less than the node capacity.
When you create a Pod, the Kubernetes scheduler selects a node for the
Pod to run on. Each node has a maximum capacity for each of the
resource types: the amount of CPU and memory it can provide for Pods.
The scheduler ensures that, for each resource type, the sum of the
resource requests of the scheduled Containers is less than the
capacity of the node. Note that although actual memory or CPU resource
usage on nodes is very low, the scheduler still refuses to place a Pod
on a node if the capacity check fails. This protects against a
resource shortage on a node when resource usage later increases, for
example, during a daily peak in request rate.
The value of resources.limits.cpu is used to determine how much CPU can be used given that it is available, see How pods with limist are run
The spec.containers[].resources.limits.cpu is converted to its
millicore value and multiplied by 100. The resulting value is the
total amount of CPU time in microseconds that a container can use
every 100ms. A container cannot use more than its share of CPU time
during this interval.
In other words, the requests is what the container is guaranteed in terms of CPU time, and the limit is what it can use given that it is not used by someone else.
The concept of multithreading does not change the above, the requests and limits apply to the container as a whole, regardless of how many threads run inside. The Linux scheduler do scheduling decisions based on waiting time, and with containers Cgroups is used to limit the CPU bandwidth. Please see this answer for a detailed walkthrough: https://stackoverflow.com/a/61856689/7146596
To finally answer the question
Your on premises VM has 4 cores, operating on 2,5 GHz, and if we assume that the CPU capacity is a function of clock speed and number of cores, you currently have 10 GHz "available"
The CPU's used in standard_D16ds_v4 has a base speed of 2.5GHz and can run up to 3.4GHz or shorter periods according to the documentation
The D v4 and Dd v4 virtual machines are based on a custom Intel® Xeon®
Platinum 8272CL processor, which runs at a base speed of 2.5Ghz and
can achieve up to 3.4Ghz all core turbo frequency.
Based on this specifying 4 cores should be enough ti give you the same capacity as onpremises.
However number of cores and clock speed is not everything (caches etc also impacts performance), so to optimize the CPU requests and limits you may have to do some testing and fine tuning.

I'm afraid there is no easy answer to your question, while planning the right size of VM Node Pools for Kubernetes cluster to fit appropriately your workload requirements for resource consumption . This is a constant effort for cluster operators, and requires you to take into account many factors, let's mention few of them:
What Quality of Service (QoS) class (Guaranteed, Burstable, BestEffort) should I specify for my Pod Application, and how many of them I plan to run ?
Do I really know the actual usage of CPU/Memory resources by my app VS. how much of VM compute resources stay idle ? (any on-prem monitoring solution in place right now, that could prove it, or be easily moved to Kubernetes in-cluster one ?)
Do my cluster is multi-tenant environment, where I need to share cluster resources with different teams ?
Node (VM) capacity is not the same as total available resources to workloads
You should think here in terms of cluster Allocatable resources:
Allocatable = Node Capacity - kube-reserved - system-reserved
In case of Standard_D16ds_v4 VM size in AZ, you would have for workloads disposal: 14 CPU Cores not 16 as assumed earlier.
I hope you are aware, that scpecified through args number of CPUs:
args:
- -cpus
- "2"
is app specific approach (in this case the 'stress' utility written in go), not general way to spawn a declared number of threads per CPU.
My suggestion:
To avoid over-provisioning or under-provisioning of cluster resources to your workload application (requested resource VS. actually utilized resources), and to optimize costs and performance of your applications, I would in your place do a preliminary sizing estimation on your own of VM Node Pool size and type required by your SpringBoot multithreaded app, and thus familiarize first with concepts like bin-packing and app right-sizing. For these two last topics I don't know a better public guide than recently published by GCP tech team:
"Monitoring gke-clusters for cost optimization using cloud monitoring"
I would encourage you to find an answer to your question by your self. Do the proof of concept on GKE first (with free trial), replace in quide above the demo app with your own workload, come back here, and share your own observation, would be valuable for others too with similar task !

Related

Does clustering in Node.js and auto-scaling web application using Kubernetes serve the same purpose?

Node.js has introduced the Cluster module to scale up applications for performance optimization. We have Kubernetes doing the same thing.
I'm confused if both are serving the same purpose? My assumption is clustering can spawn up to max 8 processes (if there are 4 cpu cores with 2 threads each) and there is no such limitation in Kubernetes.
Kubernetes and the Node.js Cluster module operate at different levels.
Kubernetes is in charge of orchestrating containers (amongst many other things). From its perspective, there are resources to be allocated, and deployments that require or use a specific amount of resources.
The Node.js Cluster module behaves as a load-balancer that forks N times and spreads the requests between the various processes it owns, all within the limits defined by its environment (CPU, RAM, Network, etc).
In practice, Kubernetes has the possibility to spawn additional Node.js containers (scaling horizontally). On the other hand, Node.js can only grow within its environment (scaling vertically). You can read about this here.
While from a performance perspective both approaches might be relatively similar (you can use the same number of cores in both cases); the problem with vertically scaling on a single machine is that you lose the high-availability aspect that Kubernetes provides. On the other hand, if you decide to deploy several Node.js containers on different machines, you are much more tolerant for the day one of them is going down.

Scaling Node.js: Using autoscaling groups with small virtual servers or cluster processes on VM with many vCPUs?

In learning about Node.js's cluster module I've been turning over the following architecture in my head: Balancing costs with performance, would it be more beneficial (i.e. cheapest but still scalable) to run your Node.js application in a cloud service's autoscaling group using small servers with one virtual CPU (say, AWS's t2.small EC2, 1 vCPU, 2gb memory) or use a larger server (say, an m5.xlarge 4 vCPU, 16gb memory), run Node.js to cluster four child processes to use the 4 vCPUs, but still autoscale?
A possible trade-off is the time it takes AWS to deploy another small server to autoscale, but on a low-traffic app or utility app you'll have to take on the cost of running the larger server when usage is low. But if the time it takes to spin up another server to handle the load is nominal, does that negate the benefits of using the cluster module?
Specifically, my question is twofold: Are these two approaches feasible and, if so, is my presumption about the cluster module's usefulness in the small server approach correct?

Start kubernetes pod memory depending on size of data job

is there a way to scale dynamically the memory size of Pod based on size of data job (my use case)?
Currently we have Job and Pods that are defined with memory amounts, but we wouldn't know how big the data will be for a given time-slice (sometimes 1000 rows, sometimes 100,000 rows).
So it will break if the data is bigger than the memory we have allocated beforehand.
I have thought of using slices by data volume, i.e. cut by every 10,000 rows, we will know memory requirement of processing a fixed amount of rows. But we are trying to aggregate by time hence the need for time-slice.
Or any other solutions, like Spark on kubernetes?
Another way of looking at it:
How can we do an implementation of Cloud Dataflow in Kubernetes on AWS
It's a best practice always define resources in your container definition, in particular:
limits:the upper level of CPU and memory
requests: the minimal level of CPU and memory
This allows the scheduler to take a better decision and it eases the assignment of Quality of Service (QoS) for each pod (https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/quality-service-pod/) which falls into three possible classes:
Guaranteed (highest priority): when requests = limits
Burstable: when requests < limits
BestEffort (lowest priority): when requests and limits are not set.
The QoS enables a criterion for killing pods when the system is overcommited.
If you don’t know the memory requirement for your pod a priori for a given time-slice, then it is difficult for Kubernete Cluster Autoscaler to automatically scale node pool for you as per this documentation [1]. Therefore for both of your suggestions like running either Cloud Dataflow or Spark on Kubernete with Kubernete Cluster Autoscaler, may not work for your case.
However, you can use custom scaling as a workaround. For example, you can export memory related metrics of the pod to Stackdriver, then deploy HorizontalPodAutoscaler (HPA) resource to scale your application as [2].
[1] https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/concepts/cluster-autoscaler#how_cluster_autoscaler_works
[2] https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/tutorials/custom-metrics-autoscaling
I have found the partial solution to this.
Note there are 2 parts to this problem.
1. Make the Pod request the correct amount of memory depending on size of data job
2. Ensure that this Pod can find a Node to run on.
The Kubernetes Cluster Autoscaler (CA) can solve part 2.
https://github.com/kubernetes/autoscaler/tree/master/cluster-autoscaler
According to the readme:
Cluster Autoscaler is a tool that automatically adjusts the size of the Kubernetes cluster when there are pods that failed to run in the cluster due to insufficient resources.
Thus if there is a data job that needs more memory than available in the currently running nodes, it will start a new node by increasing the size of a node group.
Details:
https://github.com/kubernetes/autoscaler/blob/master/cluster-autoscaler/FAQ.md
I am still unsure how to do point 1.
An alternative to point 1, start the container without specific memory request or limit:
https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/assign-memory-resource/#if-you-don-t-specify-a-memory-limit
If you don’t specify a memory limit for a Container, then one of these
situations applies:
The Container has no upper bound on the amount of memory it uses.
or
The Container could use all of the memory available on the Node where it is running.

Kubernetes doesn't take into account total node memory usage when starting Pods

What I see: Kubernetes takes into account only the memory used by its components when scheduling new Pods, and considers the remaining memory as free, even if it's being used by other system processes outside Kubernetes. So, when creating new deployments, it attempts to schedule new pods on a suffocated node.
What I expected to see: Kubernetes automatically take in consideration the total memory usage (by kubernetes components + system processes) and schedule it on another node.
As a work-around, is there a configuration parameter that I need to set or is it a bug?
Yes, there are few parameters to allocate resources:
You can allocate memory and CPU for your pods and allocate memory and CPU for your system daemons manually. In documentation you could find how it works with the example:
Example Scenario
Here is an example to illustrate Node Allocatable computation:
Node has 32Gi of memory, 16 CPUs and 100Gi of Storage
--kube-reserved is set to cpu=1,memory=2Gi,ephemeral-storage=1Gi
--system-reserved is set to cpu=500m,memory=1Gi,ephemeral-storage=1Gi
--eviction-hard is set to memory.available<500Mi,nodefs.available<10%
Under this scenario, Allocatable will be 14.5 CPUs, 28.5Gi of memory and 98Gi of local storage. Scheduler ensures that the total memory requests across all pods on this node does not exceed 28.5Gi and storage doesn’t exceed 88Gi. Kubelet evicts pods whenever the overall memory usage across pods exceeds 28.5Gi, or if overall disk usage exceeds 88GiIf all processes on the node consume as much CPU as they can, pods together cannot consume more than 14.5 CPUs.
If kube-reserved and/or system-reserved is not enforced and system daemons exceed their reservation, kubelet evicts pods whenever the overall node memory usage is higher than 31.5Gi or storage is greater than 90Gi
You can allocate as many as you need for Kubernetes with flag --kube-reserved and for system with flag -system-reserved.
Additionally, if you need stricter rules for spawning pods, you could try to use Pod Affinity.
Kubelet has the parameter --system-reserved that allows you to make a reservation of cpu and memory for system processes.
It is not dynamic (you reserve resources only at launch) but is the only way to tell Kubelet not to use all resources in node.
--system-reserved mapStringString
A set of ResourceName=ResourceQuantity (e.g. cpu=200m,memory=500Mi,ephemeral-storage=1Gi) pairs that describe resources reserved for non-kubernetes components. Currently only cpu and memory are supported. See http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/compute-resources for more detail. [default=none]

Increasing Number of VMs decreases Cassandra Throughput. What can be reason?

I am using YCSB benchmarking tool to benchmark Cassandra cluster.
I am varying the number of Virtual machines in the cluster.
I am using 1 physical host and I am using 1,2,3,4 virtual machines for benchmarking(as shown in attached figure).
The generated workload is same all the time Workload C 10,000,00 operations, 10,000 records
Each VM has 2 GB RAM, 20GB drive
Cassandra - 1 seed node, endpoint_snitch - gossipproperty
Keyspace YCSB - Replication factor 3,
The problem is that when I increase the number of virtual machines in the cluster, the throughput decreases. What can be the reason?
By definition, by increasing compute resources(i.e virtual machines), the cluster should offer better performance, but the opposite is happening as shown in attached figure. Kindly explain what can be the probable reason for this? I am writing my thesis on this topic but I am unable to figure out the reason for this, please help, I will be grateful to you.
Throughput observed by varying number of VMs in Cassandra cluster:
Very likely hitting a disk IO bottleneck. Especially with non ssd drives this is completely expected. Unless you have dedicated disk/cpu per vm the competition for resources will cause contention like this. Also 2gb per vm is not enough to do any kind of performance benchmark with Cassandra since the minimum recommended JVM heap size is 8gb.
Cassandra is great at horizontal scaling (nearly linear), but that doesn't mean that simply adding VMs to one physical host will increase throughput - a single VM on the physical host will have less contention for resources (disk, cpu, memory, network) than 4, so it's likely one VM would perform better than 4.
By definition, if you WERE increasing resources, you SHOULD see it perform better - but you're not, you're simply adding contention to existing resources. If you want to scale cassandra, you need to test it with additional physical resources - more physical machines, not more VMs on the same machine.
Finally, as Chris Lohfink mentions, your VMs are too small to do meaningful tests - 8GB JVM heap is recommended, with another 8GB of vm page cache to support reads - running Cassandra with less than 16G of RAM is typically non-ideal in production.
You're trying to test a jet engine (a distribute database designed for hundreds or thousands of physical nodes) with a gas station level equipment - your benchmark hardware isn't viable for a real production environment, so your benchmark results aren't meaningful.

Resources