Very interesting, but unless I'm missing something, this analysis measures virtualization overhead only in terms of x86 CPU cycles, not in terms of, say, Watt-weighted processor cycles.
Approximately 30% of the x86 CPU cycles went into running the hypervisor, then they designed some new hardware, moved the virtualization functionality over to the new hardware, and apparently (in this telling) stopped accounting for the power / cycles consumed by that entirely new hardware they added to the system.
Maybe this makes accounting more clean, and it's great that it safely enables bare metal instances. However, the tone of the article hinted that under Nitro, a higher percentage of the cost / environmental cost goes into running the user's workload and then failed to account at all for the monetary or environmental cost of the added hardware. (If there's no cost savings to the customer or environmental savings for us all, why does the reader care about lower virtualization overhead? The article isn't phrased as satisfying pure intellectual curiosity.)
Taken to an extreme, they could have used dynamic translation to run all of the user workloads also on custom hardware and claimed negative infinity virtualization overhead: billions of x86-CPU cycles-worth of work done, zero x86 CPU cycles spent.
Am I misunderstanding this analysis? I don't think it's all accounting tricks, and wouldn't be surprised if dedicated virtualization hardware/firmware is more efficient at virtualization than general-purpose CPUs (and likely more cost-efficient, based on Intel / AMD's markup on CPUs). I also understand their internal hardware costs and energy costs for this new hardware might be sensitive information, but it would be nice to see some kind of accounting for this new hardware instead of apparently treating it as zero CapEx / zero OpEx / zero wattage.
I’m not sure what you mean when you reference CapEx—the CapEx required to develop Nitro (definitely nonzero)? To buy the hardware and deploy it in their data centers (also assuredly nonzero)? Or on a unit basis, where it would have to be balanced against what it was replacing?
As far as development and deployment goes, this is a great example of how large companies should use CapEx to build competitive barriers. They can do something hard and expensive—5 years of engineering and then the expense of custom fab—then use that to make their unit economics better (significantly more utilization of the server by customer apps) and differentiate their products. Vogels says that development began in 2012; left unsaid is that AWS knew by then that competitors were gunning for them, so how do you protect your lead? Nitro seems like one answer.
One thing to consider in the balance is the potential savings from not relying so much on Xen. There have been Xen vulnerabilities; those haven’t been fun for AWS. It’s a complex piece of software and AWS’s version was likely heavily patched, requiring a dedicated team of senior devs. The reduction in operational complexity from using Nitro plays a role, too.
Finally, you have to consider one of AWS’s big market pushes, getting Big Enterprise to transition internal business applications away from in-house hardware/data centers and onto AWS. Few in-house IT teams could likely match the performance of EC2 with Nitro; killing off managing data centers makes the CFO happy, and having improved performance on AWS makes users happy.
> I’m not sure what you mean when you reference CapEx ...
When I talk about CapEx, I'm talking about the portion of the whole server's CapEx represented by the Nitro hardware cost, including amortized Nitro development cost. CapEx + OpEx is the normal way to account for "total cost" of the new hardware, which can be compared against CapEx + OpEx fraction of the server's cost that can be attributed to the Intel / AMD CPUs.
Likewise for OpEx, I'm talking about the portion of the whole server's OpEx represented by the Nitro hardware operating cost.
They've offloaded 30% of the work to this new hardware, and there are two obvious ways to look at if this was a good idea: (1, evaluating monetary savings) is the cost (CapEx + OpEx) of this Nitro hardware less than that of the 30% of the box's CPU resources freed up? (2, evaluating environmental savings) is the wattage used by this Nitro hardware less than the 30% of the box's CPU resources freed up?
It’s definitely largely accounting but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. Offloading virtualizing to a dedicated chip means that the virtual VM (theoretically) gets all of the CPU and thus suddenly workloads in aws are much more efficient, at the cost of developing and deploying new hardware.
It also seems like an easier engineering problem to be able to give 100% vcpu to the customer rather than adding a fancy middleware that tries to fairly allocate the requested number of cpus while transparently hiding the cost of virtualization. The efficiencies of running on dedicated hardware might be great but just being able to separate is in itself pretty amazing.
That's exactly the problem. It is only efficient if the hardware is more efficient. If you spend 40% the cost of the server on this new hardware then shift that 30% of the CPU to the new hardware you haven't actually gained anything. Your hardware cost is still (approximately) 140% of what you are selling to the customer.
Making it simpler or making the jitter better is a valuable benefit. But the claim that they are running more efficiently was completely unsubstantiated.
From the perspective of the customer who was previously billed for the 30% of the vcpu that was just overhead, it is more efficient though (if they’re being charged the same). I agree that hypothetically they could’ve just added 30% more vcpu to every request to achieve the same thing: yes that’s a solution. But this is another solution that gave them other benefits and that’s great. I still don’t see what the problem is.
Why would you presume that the new hardware would cost 40% of the server? Sure it’s an accounting trick to decide how to amortize the development costs. However they do it, I really doubt AWS would be continuing down the Nitro path if the TCO + savings wasn’t in the black. I’d like to see the energy efficiency of the new hardware and TCO estimates too, but probably that info is deemed “sensitive” and not released publicly. Likely the Nitro cards cost a fraction of that 30%, probably more like 5-15%.
I’d wager that new hardware could have a huge energy efficiency gain for the specific Nitro workloads mentioned. The 30% resource utilization on Xen could be wasting a lot of time waiting for locks, context switch’s, etc between cores that could potentially be removed entirely from custom hardware optimized for handling multiple memory contexts simultaneously just by removing cache coherency at certain points.
I never said it did cost that much. I just said that they implied a 30% savings but that was without counting the new hardware. It is disingenuous to say that it is ~100% efficient just by moving the management cost elsewhere.
I agree it was probably a win for them, I'm just pointing out that the way it was presented in the article was misleading.
Now a VM provider can provide the claimed amount of computing resources to the customer more accurately adhering to the advertised customers. That's offered by the part of moving shared services out of main CPUs.
Then next, people now can have bare-metally services. For example, VMWare wantted to have such system so that they can manage the whole machine with their VM software, you can imagine, Nitro make such system more easier to run on AWS machines, while at the same time, still have full control over security, IO, networking, etc.
Moving the hypervisor off the main CPU has made Amazon more comfortable (from a security perspective) enabling "bare metal" features like hardware performance counters. Brendan Gregg has written quite a bit about how these are used at Netflix. We use them in rr[0] to enable fast recording of asynchronous events like signals and context switches.
Speaking of which, if anybody who works on EC2 is reading this it would be great if you could continue exposing more MSRs and bare metal features. rr in particular would like MSR_INTEL_MISC_FEATURES_ENABLES to be available[1], which would enable trace portability for traces recorded on EC2.
I cannot find docs sating nitro has any general purpose chip to run a hyper visor to manage the VMs, how customer vm get launched and managed from outside the physical host?
The management of the physical host itself (including launching and terminating customer instances when running in bare metal mode) is the responsibility of a component of our server called the Nitro controller.
This all sound like marketing talk to me, at reinvent they talked about replacing xen (ring0) with nitro but I don't see how you could replace that with hardware.
There is a small ~ in that ~100% in the "after" graphic. Presumably, they still have a small shim hypervisor configuring the on-die IOMMU to provide memory protection between VMs and to perhaps multiplex M virtual CPUs on N cores.
As the article makes plain: It's an entire hardware stack specifically designed for virtualization from the ground up, and a corresponding software stack to utilize and manage it. There is no traditional HAL in Nitro because the hardware itself handles virtualization and resource isolation. You can't do that with traditional PC server hardware where a NIC is just a NIC and a SAS card is just a SAS card.
Xen, on the other hand, is designed to use standard PC hardware, with all the virtualization handled in software. The only VM-specific hardware support in Xen is the hypervisor support built in to modern CPUs, and occasionally some helper functions in NIC firmware. But you still have a 100% software-based HAL to provide the isolation and bare-metal simulation.
Imagine a NIC, for example, that instead of presenting itself to the OS as a single card with however many ports, can generate new virtual NICs, in hardware, and present them to the OS for assignment to a VM. The card itself manages bandwidth allocation, aggregation, encryption, and communication with cards in other hosts to create and manage VPCs.
A public hardware predecessor to Nitro can be seen in the "SmartNIC" academic research in several generations of https://NetFPGA.org hardware. Today, hardware co-processors can be prototyped with an FPGA and open toolchains, see Ulf Frisk's work on DMA-based attacks, https://youtube.com/watch?v=5DbQr3Zo-XY
Meanwhile, AMD uses a closed-source Arm coprocessor (PSP) for SEV features like VM memory encryption, inside their x86 CPUs. Intel has upcoming hardware with dedicated x86 silicon to run an Intel-signed TDX (Trust Domain Extensions) hypervisor for VM security features, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Intel-TD...
Kudos to Annapurna for blazing the Nitro trail. Their founder has since pioneered NVME-over-TCP storage virtualization, with optional FPGA acceleration from Lightbits Labs, code upstreamed to Linux. Hopefully the next few years will bring more open-hardware interposers for storage & network paths, for academic research and commercial prototyping.
I am enjoying the domain name (allthingsdistributed.com), to me it seems more like everything centralized under amazon, google and microsoft.
I have once, for fun, banned ips of all three companies. Internet grinded to a stop, most of sites didnt work while only russian search engine yandex still worked.
How cool, we are returning back to AT&T times and mainframes charged $20/h
... used only in highly centralized environments as barely anyone has enough knowlidge to install it (or even base system).
Architectural astronouts, "I am so high in orbit, I can only see continents - there are people, what do you mean by that?!".
(some day I wish todays "riding the hype" developers would see how fast everything worked before all this webish, cloudish, npmish, resourcewasefullish,... "technological advance" - two steps forward ten steps back sprinkled with SEO bs spice)
And I bet everyone will understand when their favorite poison will be replaced by Logo [1] - which will prove as adequate tool in idiocracy which has already started - "f*ck the knowlidge, I want a tool". Well at least until next generation will embrace Logo and claim it as revolution producing zillions of negative votes on HN for anyone who disagree...
Damn, I really need to get those Gatorade [2] stocks...
Does this mean that each node can only run a single vm size? Like one XXL or two xls or four larges, etc, but no mixing and matching? (I got that impression looking at outposts pricing too, it appears you have to decide your vm sizes up front, unless I'm reading it wrong)
I don't know if this is a hard constraint, but I believe this is how AWS organise the instances - you'll be sharing hardware with other instances of the same size.
I think it's more that it divides up. One physical machine may serve 8 c5.xlarge, 4 c5.2xl, 2 c5.4xl, or 1 c5.8xl (so to speak, not necessarily this exact instance).
Would make sense to fit 2 c5.4xl alongside 4 more c5.2xl, for example.
Yes, Nitro is built on KVM, but KVM is a very small component. (What most people call "KVM" is really 90% QEMU and 10% KVM and Nitro does not use QEMU.)
> In contrast, with the Nitro System, the only interface for operators is a restricted API, making it impossible to access customer data or mutate the system in unapproved ways.
That's great but what are the approved ways? This does not prevent access to customer data. Is there and built-in audit functionality to see accesses that were approved and done/attempted? This would also need to be implemented in all levels of the stack.
This basically means that AWS closed a compliance issue through technical control at the lowest level.
37 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 91.0 ms ] threadhttp://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-11-29/aws-ec2-virtuali...
It shows how various subsystems improved as virtualization evolved at AWS.
Seems like Nitro is radically changing AWS' hardware story.
[0] https://twitter.com/ogawa_tter/status/1108767124476981248/ph...
Edit: Here's a paper on it https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9167399 and a mini-discussion on twitter: https://twitter.com/_msw_/status/1297223835519815681
Approximately 30% of the x86 CPU cycles went into running the hypervisor, then they designed some new hardware, moved the virtualization functionality over to the new hardware, and apparently (in this telling) stopped accounting for the power / cycles consumed by that entirely new hardware they added to the system.
Maybe this makes accounting more clean, and it's great that it safely enables bare metal instances. However, the tone of the article hinted that under Nitro, a higher percentage of the cost / environmental cost goes into running the user's workload and then failed to account at all for the monetary or environmental cost of the added hardware. (If there's no cost savings to the customer or environmental savings for us all, why does the reader care about lower virtualization overhead? The article isn't phrased as satisfying pure intellectual curiosity.)
Taken to an extreme, they could have used dynamic translation to run all of the user workloads also on custom hardware and claimed negative infinity virtualization overhead: billions of x86-CPU cycles-worth of work done, zero x86 CPU cycles spent.
Am I misunderstanding this analysis? I don't think it's all accounting tricks, and wouldn't be surprised if dedicated virtualization hardware/firmware is more efficient at virtualization than general-purpose CPUs (and likely more cost-efficient, based on Intel / AMD's markup on CPUs). I also understand their internal hardware costs and energy costs for this new hardware might be sensitive information, but it would be nice to see some kind of accounting for this new hardware instead of apparently treating it as zero CapEx / zero OpEx / zero wattage.
As far as development and deployment goes, this is a great example of how large companies should use CapEx to build competitive barriers. They can do something hard and expensive—5 years of engineering and then the expense of custom fab—then use that to make their unit economics better (significantly more utilization of the server by customer apps) and differentiate their products. Vogels says that development began in 2012; left unsaid is that AWS knew by then that competitors were gunning for them, so how do you protect your lead? Nitro seems like one answer.
One thing to consider in the balance is the potential savings from not relying so much on Xen. There have been Xen vulnerabilities; those haven’t been fun for AWS. It’s a complex piece of software and AWS’s version was likely heavily patched, requiring a dedicated team of senior devs. The reduction in operational complexity from using Nitro plays a role, too.
Finally, you have to consider one of AWS’s big market pushes, getting Big Enterprise to transition internal business applications away from in-house hardware/data centers and onto AWS. Few in-house IT teams could likely match the performance of EC2 with Nitro; killing off managing data centers makes the CFO happy, and having improved performance on AWS makes users happy.
When I talk about CapEx, I'm talking about the portion of the whole server's CapEx represented by the Nitro hardware cost, including amortized Nitro development cost. CapEx + OpEx is the normal way to account for "total cost" of the new hardware, which can be compared against CapEx + OpEx fraction of the server's cost that can be attributed to the Intel / AMD CPUs.
Likewise for OpEx, I'm talking about the portion of the whole server's OpEx represented by the Nitro hardware operating cost.
They've offloaded 30% of the work to this new hardware, and there are two obvious ways to look at if this was a good idea: (1, evaluating monetary savings) is the cost (CapEx + OpEx) of this Nitro hardware less than that of the 30% of the box's CPU resources freed up? (2, evaluating environmental savings) is the wattage used by this Nitro hardware less than the 30% of the box's CPU resources freed up?
It also seems like an easier engineering problem to be able to give 100% vcpu to the customer rather than adding a fancy middleware that tries to fairly allocate the requested number of cpus while transparently hiding the cost of virtualization. The efficiencies of running on dedicated hardware might be great but just being able to separate is in itself pretty amazing.
Making it simpler or making the jitter better is a valuable benefit. But the claim that they are running more efficiently was completely unsubstantiated.
I’d wager that new hardware could have a huge energy efficiency gain for the specific Nitro workloads mentioned. The 30% resource utilization on Xen could be wasting a lot of time waiting for locks, context switch’s, etc between cores that could potentially be removed entirely from custom hardware optimized for handling multiple memory contexts simultaneously just by removing cache coherency at certain points.
I agree it was probably a win for them, I'm just pointing out that the way it was presented in the article was misleading.
Now a VM provider can provide the claimed amount of computing resources to the customer more accurately adhering to the advertised customers. That's offered by the part of moving shared services out of main CPUs.
Then next, people now can have bare-metally services. For example, VMWare wantted to have such system so that they can manage the whole machine with their VM software, you can imagine, Nitro make such system more easier to run on AWS machines, while at the same time, still have full control over security, IO, networking, etc.
Speaking of which, if anybody who works on EC2 is reading this it would be great if you could continue exposing more MSRs and bare metal features. rr in particular would like MSR_INTEL_MISC_FEATURES_ENABLES to be available[1], which would enable trace portability for traces recorded on EC2.
[0] https://github.com/mozilla/rr [1] https://github.com/mozilla/rr/issues/2667
For the bare metal instance configurations (where the instance size type in ".metal"), there is no hypervisor running on the processor.
As the article makes plain: It's an entire hardware stack specifically designed for virtualization from the ground up, and a corresponding software stack to utilize and manage it. There is no traditional HAL in Nitro because the hardware itself handles virtualization and resource isolation. You can't do that with traditional PC server hardware where a NIC is just a NIC and a SAS card is just a SAS card.
Xen, on the other hand, is designed to use standard PC hardware, with all the virtualization handled in software. The only VM-specific hardware support in Xen is the hypervisor support built in to modern CPUs, and occasionally some helper functions in NIC firmware. But you still have a 100% software-based HAL to provide the isolation and bare-metal simulation.
Imagine a NIC, for example, that instead of presenting itself to the OS as a single card with however many ports, can generate new virtual NICs, in hardware, and present them to the OS for assignment to a VM. The card itself manages bandwidth allocation, aggregation, encryption, and communication with cards in other hosts to create and manage VPCs.
Meanwhile, AMD uses a closed-source Arm coprocessor (PSP) for SEV features like VM memory encryption, inside their x86 CPUs. Intel has upcoming hardware with dedicated x86 silicon to run an Intel-signed TDX (Trust Domain Extensions) hypervisor for VM security features, https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Intel-TD...
Kudos to Annapurna for blazing the Nitro trail. Their founder has since pioneered NVME-over-TCP storage virtualization, with optional FPGA acceleration from Lightbits Labs, code upstreamed to Linux. Hopefully the next few years will bring more open-hardware interposers for storage & network paths, for academic research and commercial prototyping.
I am enjoying the domain name (allthingsdistributed.com), to me it seems more like everything centralized under amazon, google and microsoft.
I have once, for fun, banned ips of all three companies. Internet grinded to a stop, most of sites didnt work while only russian search engine yandex still worked.
How cool, we are returning back to AT&T times and mainframes charged $20/h
offtopic/
... used only in highly centralized environments as barely anyone has enough knowlidge to install it (or even base system).
Architectural astronouts, "I am so high in orbit, I can only see continents - there are people, what do you mean by that?!".
(some day I wish todays "riding the hype" developers would see how fast everything worked before all this webish, cloudish, npmish, resourcewasefullish,... "technological advance" - two steps forward ten steps back sprinkled with SEO bs spice)
And I bet everyone will understand when their favorite poison will be replaced by Logo [1] - which will prove as adequate tool in idiocracy which has already started - "f*ck the knowlidge, I want a tool". Well at least until next generation will embrace Logo and claim it as revolution producing zillions of negative votes on HN for anyone who disagree...
Damn, I really need to get those Gatorade [2] stocks...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language)
[2] - "It has electrolytes"
sarcasm/
it depends on what you’re talking about. in the context of this article, brendan gregg measured the overhead on nitro as less than 1%.
http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-11-29/aws-ec2-virtuali...
https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r19&hw=...
Xeon Gold 5120: 14 cores
I also don't work on Azure which is used in that benchmark, and the link I provided was specifically about benchmarking AWS.
Would make sense to fit 2 c5.4xl alongside 4 more c5.2xl, for example.
That's great but what are the approved ways? This does not prevent access to customer data. Is there and built-in audit functionality to see accesses that were approved and done/attempted? This would also need to be implemented in all levels of the stack.
This basically means that AWS closed a compliance issue through technical control at the lowest level.