The system relates generally to fault tolerant computing and more specifically to methods of checkpointing data.
Fault tolerant systems support computer architectures that require only a few minutes of downtime a year. Achieving extended computing uptime often requires redundant computing systems with multiple processors, specialized interconnects, and various monitoring and control modules. One approach to fault tolerant system design uses two or more processors operating in lock step synchronicity. In these lock step systems, the processors perform substantially the same operations and provide substantially the same output data at substantially the same time. Accordingly, if one of the processors fail, a particular transaction or mathematical operation is still in process within the other secondary or standby processors as a result of the dual processing paths. This processing redundancy is advantageous, but not without additional costs and considerations.
Another approach for achieving fault tolerance is to have two computers interconnected, such that one computer, the active computer or host, actively makes calculations while the other computer is idle or on standby in case the active computer experiences some failure. In these systems the information about the state of the active computer must be saved periodically to the standby computer—so that the standby computer can substantially take over at the point in the calculations where active computer experienced a failure.
One way to synchronize the state of operations for two processors is through checkpointing. In checkpointing, the active processor halts either periodically or in the cause of a specific event, and sends its data about its state change to the standby computer. During the checkpointing operation the host computer is not performing useful calculations. The length of the checkpointing interval needs to be kept at a minimum while still providing sufficient time for the requisite checkpoint operations to take place. Because of the nature of checkpointing data, the data must be complete and in the correct order on the standby computer when the data is acted upon or committed.
This issue becomes especially important when the processors each run virtual machines for each of their applications. Each virtual machine requires its own checkpoint data and transfer of that data to the standby virtual machine. Checkpointing several virtual machines can require a significant amount of time and is complicated to perform in a timely and organized manner. Processing slowdowns and errors can occur when performing such checkpointing.
The present invention addresses this issue.
In part, the invention relates to a system and method for writing checkpointing data from a host computer having an active virtual machine to a standby computer having a standby virtual machine. The virtual machine can include a guest. In one embodiment, checkpoint data can be generated for each component on the host being checkpointed. A component can be a memory component, a processor, a disk, or another virtual or tangible component of the host or standby computer. The method is performed such that multiple checkpoint data packets can be transferred from a component on the active virtual machine to the standby virtual machine without waiting for other data packets from other components. Thus, if the data packets from other components are larger or otherwise generated at a slower rate by another component of the active virtual machine, checkpoint data that is ready for transfer to the standby computer can be sent when available for transmission. In this way, data for components can be sent out of order or interleaved with data from different components. A table of contents can be used to track the checkpoint data for each component for subsequent assembly and processing as a checkpoint on a per component basis.
The structure and function of the invention can be best understood from the description herein in conjunction with the accompanying figures. The figures are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead generally being placed upon illustrative principles. The figures are to be considered illustrative in all aspects and are not intended to limit the invention, the scope of which is defined only by the claims.
a is a block diagram of an embodiment of a two node software-based fault system utilizing virtual machines;
b is a block diagram of an embodiment of a two node system using checkpointing in accordance with the invention;
The invention will be more completely understood through the following detailed description, which should be read in conjunction with the attached drawings. Detailed embodiments of the invention are disclosed herein, however, it is to be understood that the disclosed embodiments are merely exemplary of the invention, which may be embodied in various forms. Therefore, specific functional details disclosed herein are not to be interpreted as limiting, but merely as a basis for the claims and as a representative basis for teaching one skilled in the art to variously employ the invention in virtually any appropriately detailed embodiment.
In part, the invention relates to a software-based fault tolerant system. The fault tolerant system includes two nodes such as computing devices. The fault tolerant system and parameters associated with it can be adjusted using a user interface in one embodiment.
In brief overview and referring to
For a given pair of hosts, one host, for example host 4, may have one virtual machine 46 in an active state and another virtual machine 48 in a standby state. Similarly, the same can be true with host 4′. As such, checkpoint data may flow from the active virtual machine 46 of host 4 to the standby virtual machine 46′ of host 4′. Alternatively, checkpoint data can flow to the standby virtual machine 48 of host 4 from the active virtual machine 48′ of host 4′.
The data sent as a checkpoint includes the changes that have occurred to the active virtual machine since the previous checkpoint. This checkpoint data includes changes to the memory, processor and other virtualized hardware of the active virtual machine. Because during the capture of the checkpoint data, the active virtual machine is not executing the guest program, it is important to make the amount of time the virtual machine is paused as short as possible.
An exception to these steps is that changes to disk storage may be sent to the standby virtual machine from the active virtual machine, as soon as the guest on the active virtual machine issues a disk write. That is, the write data is transferred to the standby virtual machine as soon as it is written to disk by the active virtual machine.
Referring to
In one embodiment as shown in
Each computing device 4, 4′ also includes the checkpointing engine or is in communication with such a checkpointing engine that generates checkpoint data. This checkpoint data is suitable for transmitting from the node 4 with the active virtual machine to the node 4′ with the standby virtual machine. In turn, the checkpoint engine can be implemented as one or more software modules configured to monitor the node with the active virtual machine and relay information relating to the state of the node with the active virtual machine to the standby virtual machine. Various data handlers can also be used. In one embodiment, a receive (RCV) buffer 20 is used to receive messages relating to checkpoint data at the standby node 4′. Since the node 4 with the active virtual machine 46 can become a standby node, it also includes a RCV buffer 22.
Each of the active and standby nodes includes a domain controller module 42, 42′ which controls the operation of one or more virtual machines (VM) 46, 46′ that execute a given application. Each node also includes local disk storage and one or more communication links 52 that transmit checkpoint data between each of the virtual machines located on each node 4, 4′. A given virtual machine 46, 46′ is an active virtual machine for a given application while the remaining virtual machine for that application on the other node is the standby virtual machines.
Referring also to
More specifically, each host 4, 4′ includes coordination software (CS) 56, 56′ that controls the transference of checkpoint data between the two virtual machines 46, 46′. This CS can be the checkpointing engine or in communication with such an engine. Checkpoint data originates principally from three components of each virtual machine: the virtual machine process itself 60, 60′, the virtual machine storage 64, 64′ and the virtual machine memory 68, 68′. Checkpoint data from each of these components 60, 64, 68 may be sent separately across the communications link 52 from the checkpoint originating virtual machine 42 to the corresponding components 60′, 64′, 68′ on the standby virtual machine 46′ of the other computing device.
In one embodiment, this checkpoint data cannot be committed or acted upon until all the data relating to that checkpoint is received by the standby virtual machine 46′. However, since each component 60, 64, 68 acts independently, not all the data is received or committed simultaneously at the standby computing device. For example data written to physical storage takes longer to write than data written to memory. Further the amount of data for a virtual processor, virtual memory and virtual storage can vary significantly.
To avoid this, instead of restricting the transfer of data from each virtual machine component until the checkpoint data from another virtual machine component is completed, the checkpointing data for each virtual machine component is broken into packets and each packet is written independently to the standby receive buffer by the host computer with the active virtual machine. Each packet is received and written into the RCV buffer 72′ for that virtual machine and later collected into a checkpoint packet 76.
In one embodiment, the checkpoint packet 76, for example, holds checkpoint data (CD 60, CD 64, CD 68) from each of the components 60, 64, 68. Once all the data has been received, the virtual machine software 56′ on the node with the standby virtual machine permits the checkpoint data to be committed in the standby virtual machine 46′. That is, any storage checkpoint data CD 64 is written to local storage 64′; memory checkpoint data CD 64 is written to memory 64′; and process checkpoint data CD 60 is written to the process 60′ on the virtual machine 46. In this manner the checkpoint process is completed more rapidly than if the data from a single virtual component must be received before the checkpoint data for the next component is transferred.
In one embodiment, implementing fault tolerant operation using a software-based approach requires periodic precisely defined state transfers between the node with the active virtual machine and the node with the standby virtual machine. Specifically the state transfer must be complete, contain no extraneous state data (i.e. state data associated with states other than the one corresponding to the present checkpoint) and both nodes need to agree when the entire state transfer has completed. This invention includes a protocol by which the requisite state transfer tracking is an integral component when passing checkpointing information across the physical links connecting the active and standby nodes.
Referring to
The checkpoint data is broken into a series of packets and the TOC keeps track of the order in which the packets must be reassembled and to what checkpoint data the packets belong; virtual memory data, virtual storage data or virtual process data.
In one embodiment, each checkpoint packet is written to a location in the receive buffer (RCV buffer) 72′ on the node 4′ with the standby virtual machine 46′ by the node with the active virtual machine 46. The RCV buffer 72′ includes a plurality of pages of memory. During the setup stage of the system, each node 4 and 4′ includes a receive buffer allocation map for the receive buffer on the other node. The receive buffer allocation map is used by the node with the active virtual machine to allocate space in the receive buffer in the node with the standby virtual machine 46′. When a page of RCV buffer on the node with the standby virtual machine is written to by the node with the active virtual machine 46, the corresponding byte in the allocation map on the node with the active virtual machine is set to 1. These bytes are the mechanism by which the node with the active virtual machine is able to track that a given page of the RCV buffer has been written to with a portion of a checkpoint message.
Referring to
The checkpoint data from virtual storage 64 (
Referring to
At this point, (
Once all the memory buffers (M) have been committed, (
Similarly, once all the storage buffers (S) have been committed, (
At this point the entire checkpoint message has now been completely processed for all components and RCV buffer on the standby node and the RCV buffer of the node with the active virtual machine are clear for the next checkpoint data transfer.
Some portions of the detailed description are presented in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions and representations can be used by those skilled in the computer and software related fields.
Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as “processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or “comparing”, “generating” or “determining” or “committing” or “checkpointing” or “interrupting” or “handling” or “receiving” or “buffering” or “allocating” or “displaying” or “flagging” or Boolean logic or other set related operations or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or electronic device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system's or electronic devices' registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within electronic memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.
The algorithms and displays presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general purpose systems may be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these systems will appear from the description below. In addition, the present invention is not described with reference to any particular programming language, and various embodiments may thus be implemented using a variety of programming languages.
The aspects, embodiments, features, and examples of the invention are to be considered illustrative in all respects and are not intended to limit the invention, the scope of which is defined only by the claims. Other embodiments, modifications, and usages will be apparent to those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the claimed invention.
The use of headings and sections in the application is not meant to limit the invention; each section can apply to any aspect, embodiment, or feature of the invention.
Throughout the application, where compositions are described as having, including, or comprising specific components, or where processes are described as having, including or comprising specific process steps, it is contemplated that compositions of the present teachings also consist essentially of, or consist of, the recited components, and that the processes of the present teachings also consist essentially of, or consist of, the recited process steps.
In the application, where an element or component is said to be included in and/or selected from a list of recited elements or components, it should be understood that the element or component can be any one of the recited elements or components and can be selected from a group consisting of two or more of the recited elements or components. Further, it should be understood that elements and/or features of a composition, an apparatus, or a method described herein can be combined in a variety of ways without departing from the spirit and scope of the present teachings, whether explicit or implicit herein.
The use of the terms “include,” “includes,” “including,” “have,” “has,” or “having” should be generally understood as open-ended and non-limiting unless specifically stated otherwise.
The use of the singular herein includes the plural (and vice versa) unless specifically stated otherwise. Moreover, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” include plural forms unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. In addition, where the use of the term “about” is before a quantitative value, the present teachings also include the specific quantitative value itself, unless specifically stated otherwise.
It should be understood that the order of steps or order for performing certain actions is immaterial so long as the present teachings remain operable. Moreover, two or more steps or actions may be conducted simultaneously.
It is to be understood that the figures and descriptions of the invention have been simplified to illustrate elements that are relevant for a clear understanding of the invention, while eliminating, for purposes of clarity, other elements. Those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize, however, that these and other elements may be desirable. However, because such elements are well known in the art, and because they do not facilitate a better understanding of the invention, a discussion of such elements is not provided herein. It should be appreciated that the figures are presented for illustrative purposes and not as construction drawings. Omitted details and modifications or alternative embodiments are within the purview of persons of ordinary skill in the art.
The invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from the spirit or essential characteristics thereof. The foregoing embodiments are therefore to be considered in all respects illustrative rather than limiting on the invention described herein. Scope of the invention is thus indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description, and all changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are intended to be embraced therein.
This application claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. provisional patent application 61/752,632 filed on Jan. 15, 2013, the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3736566 | Anderson et al. | May 1973 | A |
4590554 | Glazer et al. | May 1986 | A |
4751702 | Beier et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4758951 | Sznyter, III | Jul 1988 | A |
4831581 | Rubinfeld | May 1989 | A |
5099485 | Bruckert et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5155809 | Baker et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5157663 | Major et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5193162 | Bordsen et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5235700 | Alaiwan et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5333265 | Orimo et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5357612 | Alaiwan | Oct 1994 | A |
5404361 | Casorso et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5465328 | Dievendorff et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5568380 | Brodnax et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5615403 | Bissett et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5621885 | Del Vigna, Jr. | Apr 1997 | A |
5694541 | Service et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5721918 | Nilsson et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5724581 | Kozakura | Mar 1998 | A |
5745905 | Larsson et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5787485 | Fitzgerald, V et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5790397 | Bissett et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5802265 | Bressoud et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5892928 | Wallach et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5896523 | Bissett et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5913021 | Masubuchi | Jun 1999 | A |
5918229 | Davis et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5923832 | Shirakihara et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933838 | Lomet | Aug 1999 | A |
5948112 | Shimada et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5958070 | Stiffler | Sep 1999 | A |
5968185 | Bressoud et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6023772 | Fleming | Feb 2000 | A |
6035415 | Fleming | Mar 2000 | A |
6067550 | Lomet | May 2000 | A |
6088773 | Kano et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6098137 | Goodrum et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6105148 | Chung et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6141769 | Petivan et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6158019 | Squibb | Dec 2000 | A |
6289474 | Beckerle | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6301677 | Squibb | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6397242 | Devine et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6401216 | Meth et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6438705 | Chao et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6453343 | Housel, III et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6526447 | Giammaria | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6687849 | Cherf | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6718538 | Mathiske | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6823474 | Kampe et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6907477 | Altman et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6954877 | Earl et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6978400 | Hickson et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7039663 | Federwisch et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7055063 | Leymann et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058846 | Kelkar et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7076555 | Orman et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7080375 | Martin | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7162698 | Huntington et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7206964 | Moser et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7249118 | Sandler et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7289433 | Chmara et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7299337 | Traut et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7310721 | Cohen | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7363538 | Kundu et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7380039 | Miloushev et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7392433 | Sahoo et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7545752 | Krautkremer et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7577934 | Anonsen et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7603391 | Federwisch et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7743381 | Tran | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7934035 | Miloushev et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8117496 | Bashir et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8145945 | Lee | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8806266 | Qu | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8812907 | Bissett | Aug 2014 | B1 |
20020073249 | French et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020073276 | Howard et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078308 | Altman et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020147890 | Saulsbury et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030005102 | Russell | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030005356 | Franckowiak et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030084376 | Nash et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030163763 | DeLano | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040010663 | Prabhu | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040143776 | Cox | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040158549 | Matena et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040193658 | Kawamura et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193945 | Eguchi et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199812 | Earl et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040267897 | Hill et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050015702 | Shier et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050201373 | Shimazu et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050229039 | Anderson et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050251785 | Vertes et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050256826 | Hambrick et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060047925 | Perry | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060062142 | Appanna et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060112297 | Davidson | May 2006 | A1 |
20060179147 | Tran et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070027985 | Ramany et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070174484 | Lussier et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20090113109 | Nelson et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090193298 | Mukherjee | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20100077164 | Stiffler et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100107158 | Chen et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100325500 | Bashir et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110161639 | Knauth et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110167194 | Scales et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110167195 | Scales et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110167196 | Scales et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110167298 | Lee | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110289417 | Schaefer | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120011401 | Ranganathan et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120011508 | Ahmad | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120084520 | Chou et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120284721 | Antani et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130212205 | Flockhart | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20140040206 | Ramakrishnan | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140164591 | Bickford et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20150009804 | Koponen | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150127809 | Akella | May 2015 | A1 |
20150180761 | Watanabe | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150205672 | Bissett | Jul 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 750 261 | Dec 1996 | EP |
0 974 912 | Jan 2000 | EP |
2 268 817 | Jan 1994 | GB |
10-320326 | Dec 1998 | JP |
2004-206212 | Jul 2004 | JP |
9217842 | Oct 1992 | WO |
9926133 | May 1999 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Clark et al., “Live Migration of Virtual Machines,” NSDI '05 2nd Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation, USENIX Association, May 4, 2005, pp. 273-286. |
Cully et al., “Remus: High Availability via Asynchronous Virtual Machine Replication,” The University of British Columbia, Department of Computer Science, 14 pages. |
Kim et al., “Process Allocation for Load Distribution in Fault-Tolerant Multicomputers,” IEEE Publication, pp. 174-183, 1995. |
Nakamikawa et al., “High Performance Fault Tolerant Computer and its Fault Recovery,” 1997 IEEE, pp. 2-6. |
Tamura, “Modernization of Kemari using HVM with PV Drivers,” Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, NTT Cyber Space Labs, Nov. 20, 2008, 23 pages. |
Tamura et al., “Kemari: Virtual Machine Synchronization for Fault Tolerance,” NTT Cyber Space Labs, 2 pages. |
Tamura, “Kemari: Virtual Machine Synchronization for Fault Tolerance using DomT,” Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, NTT Cyber Space Labs, Jun. 24, 2008, 19 pages. |
Tamura et al., “Virtual Machine Synchronization for High Availability Clusters,” Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, NTT Cyber Space Labs, Apr. 17, 2007, 17 pages. |
PCT International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/US06/19754, dated Oct. 17, 2007, 3 pages. |
Supplementary European Search Report for Application No. EP 06770856, completed Nov. 10, 2010, 6 pages. |
PCT International Search Report and PCT Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2014/070461, mailed Apr. 2, 2015, 9 pages. |
International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for International Application No. PCT/US2014/070456, mailed Jun. 22, 2015, 16 pages. |
PCT International Search Report and the Written Opinion Application No. PCT/US2014/070453, mailed Aug. 21, of the International Searching Authority for International 2015, 24 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140201574 A1 | Jul 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61752632 | Jan 2013 | US |