It's said that good engineers know how to identify resources that may not appear to be relevant to scaling initially but will become more significant as particular kinds of demand grow. If that’s the case, then great engineers know that system architecture is often the determining factor in system scalability — that a system’s own architecture may be its worse enemy — so they define and structure systems in order avoid fundamental flaws.
In this post, I want to explore the relationship between system efficiency and scalability in distributed systems; they are to some extent two sides of the same coin. We’ll consider specifically two common system architecture traits: replication and routing. Some of this may seem obvious to some of you but it’s always good to back intuition with some additional reasoning.
Before we go any further, it’s helpful to formulate a definition of efficiency applicable to our context:
efficiency is the extent to which useful work is performed relative to the total work and/or cost incurred.
We’ll also use the following definition of scalability,
scalability is the ability of a system to accommodate an increased workload by repeatedly applying a cost-effective strategy for extending a system’s capacity.
So, scalability and efficiency are both determined by cost-effectiveness with the distinction that scalability is a measure of marginal gain. Stated differently, if efficiency decreases significantly as a system grows, then a system is said to be non-scalable.
Enough rambling, let’s get our thinking caps on! Since we’re talking about distributed systems, it’s practically inevitable to compare against traditional single-computer systems, so we’ll start with a narrow definition of system efficiency:
average work for processing a request in distributed system
More succinctly, we’ll write:
(1) Efficiency = Wsingle / Wcluster
Many distributed systems replicate some or all of the data they process across different processing nodes (to increase reliability, availability or read performance) so we can model:
(2) Wcluster = Wsingle + (r x Wreplication)
where r is the number of replicas in the system and Wreplication is the work required to replicate the data to other nodes. Wreplication is typically lower than Wsingle, though realistically they have different cost models (e.g., Wsingle may be CPU-intensive whereas Wreplication may be I/O-intensive). If n is the number of nodes in the system, then r may be as large as (n-1), meaning replicating to all other nodes, though most systems will only replicate to 2 or 3 other nodes — for good reason — as we’ll discover later.
We’ll now define the replication coeffient, which expresses the relative cost of replication compared to the cost of processing the request on a single node:
(3) Qreplication = Wreplication / Wsingle
Solving for Qreplication, we get:
(4) Wreplication = Qreplication x Wsingle
If we substitute Wreplication in (2) by the equation formulated in (4), we obtain:
(5) Wcluster = Wsingle x [ 1 + ( r x Qreplication * Wsingle ) ]
We now factor out Wsingleon the left side:
(6) Wcluster = Wsingle x [ 1 + r * Qreplication ]
Taking the efficiency equation (1) and substituting Wcluster from (6), the equation becomes:
(7) Efficiency = Wsingle / [ Wsingle x ( 1 + r * Qreplication ]
We then simplify Wsingle to obtain the final efficiency for a replicating distributed system:
(8) Efficiency (replication) = 1 / [ 1 + (r x Qreplication) ]
As expected, both r and Qreplication are critical factors determining efficiency.
Interpreting this last equation and assuming Qreplication is a constant inherent to the system’s processing, our two takeaways are:
- If the system replicates to all other nodes (i.e., r = n - 1) it becomes clear that the efficiency of the system will degrade as more nodes are added and will approach zero as n becomes sufficiently large.To illustrate this, let's assume Qreplication is 10%,Efficiency (r = 1, n = 2) = 91%Efficiency (r = 2, n = 3) = 83%Efficiency (r = 3, n = 4) = 76%Efficiency (r = 4, n = 5) = 71%Efficiency (r = 5, n = 6) = 67%...In other words, fully-replicated distributed systems don't scale.
- For a system to scale, the replication factor should be a (small) constant.Let's illustrate this with Qreplication fixed at 10% and using a replication factor of 3,Efficiency (r = 3, n = 4) = 76%Efficiency (r = 3, n = 5) = 76%Efficiency (r = 3, n = 6) = 76%Efficiency (r = 3, n = 7) = 76%Efficiency (r = 3, n = 8) = 76%...As we can see, fixed-replication-factor distributed systems scale — although, as you might expect, they do not exhibit the same efficiency as a single-node system. At worse, the efficiency will be 1/r — as you would intuitively expect.
When a distributed system routes requests to nodes holding the relevant information (e.g., a partially replicated system, r < n) its working model may be defined as,
(9) Wcluster = (r / n) * Wsingle + (n-r)/n * (Wrouting + Wsingle)
The above equation represents the fact that r out of n requests are processed locally whereas the remainer of the requests are routed and processed on a different node.
Let’s define the routing coefficient to be,
(10) Qrouting = Wrouting / Wsingle
Solving for Wrouting in (9) by (11) to obtain,
(12) Wcluster = (r/n) * Wsingle + (n-r)/n * [ (Qrouting * Wsingle) + Wsingle ]
and taking the efficiency equation (1), substituting Wcluster from (12), the simplified equation becomes:
(13) Efficiency (routing) = n / [ n + (n - r) * Qrouting ]
Looking at this last equation, we can infer that:
- As the system grows and n goes towards infinity, the efficiency of the system can be expressed as 1 / (1 + Qrouting). The efficiency is not dependent on the actual number of nodes within the system therefore routing-based systems generally scale.(But you knew that already)
- If the number of nodes is large compared to the replication factor (n >> r) and Qrouting is significant (1.0, same cost as Wsingle), then the efficiency is ½, or 50%. This matches the intuition that the system is routing practically all requests and therefore spending half of its efforts on routing. The system is scaling linearly but it’s costing twice as much to operate (for every node) compared to a single-node system.
- If the cost of routing is insignificant (Qrouting = 0), the efficiency is 100%. That’s right, if it doesn’t cost anything to route the request to a node that can process it, the efficiency is the same as a single-node system.
Let’s consider a practical distributed system with 10 nodes (n = 10), a replication factor of 3 (r = 3), and a relative routing cost of 10% (Qrouting = 0.10). This system would have an efficiency of 10 / 10 + (7 * 10%) = 93.46%. As you can see, routing-based distributed systems can be pretty efficient if Qrouting is relatively small.
Where To Now?
Well, this was a fun exploration of system scalability in the abstract. We came up with interesting equations to describe the scalabilty of both data-replicating and request-routing architectures. With some thinkering, these can serve as a good basis for reasoning about some of your distributed systems.
In real life, however, there are many other aspects to consider when scaling systems. In fact, it often feels like a whack-a-mole hunt; you never know there the next performance non-linearity is going to rear its ugly head. But if you use either (or both) the data-replicating and request-routing style architecture with reasonable replication factors and you manage to keep your replication/routing costs well below your single-node processing costs, you may find some comfort in knowing that at least you haven’t introduced a fundamental scaling limitation unto your system.
PS: With apologies for the formatting of the formulas ... Blogger wasn't exactly friendly with my equations imported from Google Docs so I had to go down the ASCII route. Thanks for reading and making it through!