Performance Evaluation of Kubernetes Autoscaling strategies on GKE clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud computing and containerisation have experienced significant growth in recent years. With cloud providers requiring users to specify resource limits and requests, the need for performance and resource optimisation has emerged in the cloud computing domain. This thesis focuses on examining three autoscaling approaches in the Kubernetes container orchestrator: Hybrid Pod Autoscaler, Vertical Pod Autoscaler (VPA), and Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA). To conduct the analysis, a production-grade microservice was deployed on a GKE cluster, replicating the workload of the host company Nordnet Bank AB, a pan-Nordic platform for savings investments. The main objective was to investigate the impact of the different autoscalers on the 50th and 99th percentile response times. The study also aimed to investigate whether a hybrid pod autoscaler, combining VPA and HPA, could outperform HPA and VPA in terms of response time and CPU usage. Additionally, the study aimed to identify the service metrics that an orchestrator can use to achieve response times similar to those obtained when resources are over-provisioned. The research findings indicate that response times varied significantly depending on the autoscaling strategy. While the 50th percentile response times remained consistent, the 99th percentile exhibited greater variation. Among the strategies, HPA demonstrated consistent performance, albeit with greater variability in the 99th percentile response times. The VPA strategy, in contrast, resulted in higher response times for both the 50th and 99th percentile compared to the baseline. The hybrid approach generally outperformed VPA in terms of response times while showing comparable performance to HPA, although with slightly greater variability. CPU usage patterns of the hybrid approach were more closely aligned with HPA than VPA. CPU usage and request rate were effectively used as service metrics for orchestrators in achieving acceptable 99th percentile response times, as demonstrated by both HPA and the hybrid approach. Nevertheless, these findings are contingent on the specific autoscaler configuration, microservice, and workload model used in this study and may not be universally applicable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".