ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Size-based scheduling to improve web performance
Full text PdfPdf (486 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS) archive
Volume 21 ,  Issue 2  (May 2003) table of contents
Pages: 207 - 233  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISSN:0734-2071
Authors
Mor Harchol-Balter  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Bianca Schroeder  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Nikhil Bansal  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Mukesh Agrawal  Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 21,   Downloads (12 Months): 141,   Citation Count: 48
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/762483.762486
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Is it possible to reduce the expected response time of every request at a web server, simply by changing the order in which we schedule the requests? That is the question we ask in this paper.This paper proposes a method for improving the performance of web servers servicing static HTTP requests. The idea is to give preference to requests for small files or requests with short remaining file size, in accordance with the SRPT (Shortest Remaining Processing Time) scheduling policy.The implementation is at the kernel level and involves controlling the order in which socket buffers are drained into the network. Experiments are executed both in a LAN and a WAN environment. We use the Linux operating system and the Apache and Flash web servers.Results indicate that SRPT-based scheduling of connections yields significant reductions in delay at the web server. These result in a substantial reduction in mean response time and mean slowdown for both the LAN and WAN environments. Significantly, and counter to intuition, the requests for large files are only negligibly penalized or not at all penalized as a result of SRPT-based scheduling.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Almeida, J., Dabu, M., Manikutty, A., and Cao, P. 1998. Providing differentiated quality-of-service in Web hosting services. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Internet Server Performance.
 
2
Almesberger, W. 1999. Linux network traffic control---implementation overview. White paper available at http://diffserv.sourceforge.net/.
 
3
Almesberger, W., Salim, J. H., and Kuznetsov, A. 1999. Differentiated services on Linux. White paper available at http://lrcwww.epfl.ch/linux-diffserv/.
 
4
Apache. 2001. Apache web server. http://httpd.apache.org.
5
 
6
7
8
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
Braun, H. and Claffy, K. 1994. Web traffic characterization: an assessment of the impact of caching documents from NCSA's Web server. In Proceedings of the Second International WWW Conference.
 
13
Cockcroft, A. 1996. Watching your web server. The Unix Insider at http://www.unixinsider.com.
 
14
 
15
Crovella, M., Frangioso, R., and Harchol-Balter, M. 1999. Connection scheduling in web servers. In USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems.
 
16
 
17
18
 
19
Feldmann, A.1999. Web performance characteristics. IETF plenary Nov. http://www.research. att.com/∼anja/feldmann/papers.html.
 
20
21
 
22
Harchol-Balter, M., Schroeder, B., Bansal, N., and Agrawal, M. 2000. Implementation of SRPT scheduling in web servers. Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-00-170.
 
23
ITA. 2002. The internet traffic archives. Available at http://town.hall.org/Archives/pub/ITA/.
24
 
25
 
26
Little, J. 1961. A proof of the theorem L = λW. Operations Research 9, 383--387.
 
27
Maggs, B. 2001. Personal communication with Vice President of Research, Akamai Technologies, Bruce Maggs.
 
28
Manley, S. and Seltzer, M. 1997. Web facts and fantasy. In Proceedings of the 1997 USITS.
 
29
Microsoft. 2001. The arts and science of Web server tuning with internet information services 5.0. Microsoft TechNet---Insights and Answers for IT Professionals: At http://www.microsoft. com/technet/.
 
30
Mogul, J. C. 1995. Network behavior of a busy Web server and its clients. Tech. Rep. 95/5, Digital Western Research Laboratory. October.
 
31
NISTNet. 2002. National institute of standards and technology. http://snad.ncsl.nist.gov/itg/nistnet/.
 
32
 
33
Pai, V. S., Druschel, P., and Zwaenepoel, W. 1999. Flash: An efficient and portable Web server. In Proceedings of USENIX 1999.
 
34
Radhakrishnan, S. 1999. Linux---advanced networking overview version 1. Available at http://qos.ittc.ukans.edu/howto/.
35
 
36
Roberts, J. and Massoulie, L. 1998. Bandwidth sharing and admission control for elastic traffic. In ITC Specialist Seminar.
 
37
Schrage, L. E. and Miller, L. W. 1966. The queue M/G/1 with the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research 14, 670--684.
 
38
 
39
Stallings, W. 2001. Operating Systems, Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall.

CITED BY  48

Collaborative Colleagues:
Mor Harchol-Balter: colleagues
Bianca Schroeder: colleagues
Nikhil Bansal: colleagues
Mukesh Agrawal: colleagues