1.
Evaluation of Caching Strategies
based on Access Statistics on Past Requests
Gerhard Haßlinger, Konstantinos Ntougias
gerhard.hasslinger@telekom.de; kostas_ntougias@yahoo.gr
Commercial in Confidence

Least Recently Used (LRU): Simple Standard Method
- Analysis, Simulation: Deficits of LRU Cache Hit Rate

Statistics-based Caching Strategies
- Window: over the last K Requests
- Geometrical Aging: Geom. Decreasing Weight per Request
- Criteria: Hit Rate and Effort for Alternative Strategies

Summary on hit rates and effort of web caching strategies
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

2.
Cache Efficiency for YouTube Video Traces
60%
Cache Hit Rate
50%
Optimal Cache Strategy: Most Popular Data in Cache
Zipf Law Approximation: 0.004*R**(-5/8)
LRU Cache Strategie:
Least Recently Used
40%
30%
20%
10%
Commercial in Confidence
0%
0.0078%
0.031%
0.124%
0.5%
2%
Cache Size: Fraction of videos in the cache
Evaluation of 3.7 billion accesses on 1.65 million YouTube
files
Sources: M. Cha et al., I tube, you tube, everybody tubes: Analyzing the world’s largest user
generated content video system, Internet measurement conference IMC, San Diego, USA (2007)
Efficiency of caching for IP-based Content Delivery (G. Haßlinger, O. Hohlfeld, ITC 2010)
Results confirmed by N. Megiddo and S. Modha, Outperforming LRU with an adaptive
replacement cache algorithm, IEEE Computer, (Apr. 2004) 4-11
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

3.
Cache Strategies incl. Statistics on Past Requests
Sliding Window: Cache holds objects with highest request
frequency over a sliding window of the last K requests

Geometric Fading: Cache holds objects that have the highest
sum of weights for past requests, where the kth request in the
past has a geometrically decreasing weight r k (0 < r < 1).
Commercial in Confidence

© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

4.
Statistics over window of the last K requests

Commercial in Confidence

Converges to caching of the most popular objects for large K
Reacts to dynamic change in population, after delay until
requests to new item are relevant in the statistics
Implementation:
 The request sequence in the window has to be stored;
for a new request one request is falling out of the window
and has to be removed from statistics
 2 objects change their statistics score per new request:
Updates in cache still have constant effort per request,
although more than for LRU
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

5.
Statistics with geometrical aging

Commercial in Confidence

The k-th request in the past is weighted by ρ k (ρ <1)
The weight of an object is the sum of the weights of request
Objects are ordered according to their weights
Implementation:
 In principle, all weights should be multiplied by ρ for each
request; instead, the new weight can be multiplied by 1/ρ (>1)
i.e. weights are (1/ρ )k for the k-th request
 One object changes rank per request;
Effort for update rank in sorted list: O(ln(M))
Faster approx.: Requested object to step up noly one rank;
or rank updates only e.g. per hour or per day
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

6.
Basic Assumptions on Cache Modeling & Evaluation
We assume
 a set of N objects and a cache for M (< N) objects of fixed
size
(objects of different size are handled as k unit size chunks;
bin-packing problems are almost irrelevant in large caches)
Commercial in Confidence

Random independent requests with static popularity
pk: Request Probability to object k in the order of popularity
⇒ Optimum strategy holds the most popular objects in cache
Static popularity is favourable for the cache hit rate, since
unforeseen changes in popularity detract from cache
efficiency


Measurement traces of request to Youtube show only slowly
varying popularity, a few percent of new top 100 items appear
per day/week
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

7.
Results on LRU Caching Strategy

An LRU cache is implemented as a stack of dept M;
A new request puts the object on top
LRU is simple and frequently used (Squid, DropBox etc.)

Analysis of the hit rate for static distribution is possible:
pk2
hLRU ( M ) = ∑ pk1 ∑
1 − pk1
k1 =1
k 2 =1
Commercial in Confidence
N
N
k 2 ≠ k1

N
∑
k3 =1
k3 ≠ k1 ,k 2
p k3
...
1 − pk1 − pk2
N
∑
k M =1
k M ≠ k1 ,..., k n −1
pkM
1 − ∑ j =1 pk j
M −1
M
∑p
j =1
kj
.
but has complex evaluation feasible only for small size M < 15
Approximations by Towsley et al. (1999), Ha. & Ho. (2010),
Fricker, Robert, Roberts (2011) seem to be good for arbitrary
static request distribution but verified only by simulation
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

8.
Worst Case Analysis of LRU Caching Strategy

Cache size M =1 with only one popular popularity
p1 >> ε > p2 , … When most popular item is always in cache
⇒ optimum hit rate: p1; LRU hit rate is smaller: p12.

Arbitrary cache size M with a set IPop of M popular objects
p1 = p2 = … =pM = p/M >> ε > pM+1, pM+2, …
Commercial in Confidence
Commercial in Confidence

pLRU(j, k): probability of j popular items from the set IPop are found
in an LRU cache of size k. We can analyse pLRU(j, k) iteratively:
pLRU ( j , k ) = p ( j , k − 1)
1 − Mp − (k − 1 − j )ε
( M − j + 1) p
+ p( j − 1, k − 1)
.
1 − jp − (k − 1 − j )ε
1 − ( j − 1) p − (k − j )ε
⇒ LRU hit rate hLRU = Σj pLRU(j, M)[ j  p + (M – j)ε ].
LRU
Cache
of
size k
=
XTop
+
Cache of
size k-1
XTop ∈ IPop
Last request to an object X
not in the cache of size k-1
pLRU(j+1, k)
XTop ∉ IPop
pLRU(j, k)
pLRU(j, k-1)
⇒ Exact analysis of LRU worst case hit rate is feasible
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

9.
Worst Case Analysis of LRU Caching
100%
Most popular items in cache
LRU Worst Case for Cache of Size 1
LRU Worst Case for Cache of Size 2
LRU Worst Case for Cache of Size 10
LRU Worst Case for Cache of Size 50
Commercial in Confidence
Cache Hit Rate
80%
60%
28.9% max. absolute deficit →
severe relative deficits for
↓ small cache hit rate
40%
20%
0%
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
Worst Case LRU Scenario: Probability of a request to the set of popular objects
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium
1

10.
Simulation Results for Caching Strategies
Hit rate of the caching strategies (N = 1000 objects; K = 1000)
for Zipf distributed requests A(R) = α R–β (β = 0.6; α = 2.7%)
40%
Most popular objects in the cache
Geometrical fading
Sliding window
LRU Approximation
LRU Simulation
20%
R
t
i
H
e
h
c
a
C
Commercial in Confidence
30%
10%
0%
M=
5
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium
10
20
50
100

11.
Simulation Results for Caching Strategies
Hit rate of the caching strategies (N = 1000; K = 1000)
for Zipf distributed requests A(R) = α R–β (β = 0.99; α = 13.9%)
70%
Optimum
Geometrical fading
Sliding window
LRU Approximation
LRU Simulation
60%
40%
30%
R
t
i
H
e
h
c
a
C
Commercial in Confidence
50%
20%
10%
0%
M=
5
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium
10
20
50
100

12.
Simulation Results for Caching Strategies
Hit rate of the caching strategies (N = 1000)
for Zipf distributed requests A(R) = α R–β (β = 0.99; α = 6.5%)
60%
55%
45%
R
t
i
H
e
h
c
a
C
Commercial in Confidence
50%
Optimum for i.i.d. requests
Geometrical fading
Sliding window
LRU
40%
35%
K= 1
4
16
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
Sliding Window and Geometrical Fading:
Hit rate depending on the window size K, ρ (ρ = K/(K + 1))
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium

13.
Conclusions on Cache Replacement Strategies


Commercial in Confidence

LRU seems most often used in web caches (Squid, DropBox)
For static popularity, LRU is below the maximal hit rate by
- 28.9% in the worst case
- 10-20% for large content sites (YouTube; Zipf-like requests)
LRU performance is poor especially for small caches
Statistics over a fixed size window and geometric aging
can converge to optimum hit rate of the static popularity case

Implementation:
- Statistics over window needs some storage,
has constant update effort per request but more than LRU
- Geometric aging has effort O(ln(M))

Zipf law popularity makes (small) caches efficient
© 2013 The SmartenIT Consortium