Reliability and Survivability Analysis of Data Center Network Topologies

TL;DR

This paper compares the reliability and survivability of different data center network topologies, including Fat-tree, BCube, and DCell, providing formulas and analysis to determine the most robust designs against failures.

Contribution

It offers a general analytical framework with closed-form formulas for Mean Time To Failure, comparing multiple topologies' robustness independently of specific equipment or protocols.

Findings

BCube is more robust to link failures.

DCell is most robust against switch failures.

All alternative topologies outperform the three-layer topology.

Abstract

The architecture of several data centers have been proposed as alternatives to the conventional three-layer one.Most of them employ commodity equipment for cost reduction. Thus, robustness to failures becomes even more important, because commodity equipment is more failure-prone. Each architecture has a different network topology design with a specific level of redundancy. In this work, we aim at analyzing the benefits of different data center topologies taking the reliability and survivability requirements into account. We consider the topologies of three alternative data center architecture: Fat-tree, BCube, and DCell. Also, we compare these topologies with a conventional three-layer data center topology. Our analysis is independent of specific equipment, traffic patterns, or network protocols, for the sake of generality. We derive closed-form formulas for the Mean Time To Failure of each topology. The results allow us to indicate the best topology for each failure scenario. In particular, we conclude that BCube is more robust to link failures than the other topologies, whereas DCell has the most robust topology when considering switch failures. Additionally, we show that all considered alternative topologies outperform a three-layer topology for both types of failures. We also determine to which extent the robustness of BCube and DCell is influenced by the number of network interfaces per server.