Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative analysis of prominently used MCDM methods in cloud environment

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Incloud computing, the selection of an efficient multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method (with minimum time complexity and maximum robustness) is a challenging and interesting problem. The time complexity and robustness of a MCDM method depend upon the methodology of evaluating the best alternative (i.e., cloud service). Although numerous MCDM methods are proposed for the quality-of-service based service selection in the cloud, still the issue of selecting the most efficient method remains unresolved. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the prominently used MCDM methods in terms of time complexity and robustness. The MCDM methods are used in the geographical region selection problem for Amazon Web Service cloud, and a comparative analysis of the obtained ranking results is performed. Further, application-specific analysis and sensitivity analysis are performed to ascertain the robustness of ranking methods. Experimental analysis is performed on the large-scale synthetic dataset to get the ranking overhead, i.e., time complexity of different MCDM methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dempsey D, Kelliher F (2017) Industry trends in cloud computing: alternative business-to-business revenue models. Springer, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  2. Erl T, Puttini R, Mahmood Z (eds) (2013) Cost metrics and pricing models. In: Cloud computing: concepts, technology and architecture. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, pp 380–390

  3. Larkin A (2019) Disadvantages of cloud computing. https://cloudacademy.com/blog/disadvantages-of-cloud-computing/. Accessed 3 Mar 2019

  4. Shen H, Liu G (2013) An efficient and trustworthy resource sharing platform for collaborative cloud

  5. The cloud service measurement initiative consortium, service measurement index (SMI), Carnegie Mellon, Silicon Valley. http://www.cloudcommons.com/about-smi. Accessed 3 Mar 2019

  6. Saaty TL (2005) The analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. Int Ser Oper Res Manag Sci 78:345–405

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) Note: a preference ranking organisation method. Manag Sci 31(6):647–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yoon K (1987) A reconciliation among discrete compromise solutions. J Oper Res Soc 38(3):277–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mardani A, Zavadskas EK, Govindan K, Amat Senin A, Jusoh A (2016) VIKOR technique: a systematic review of the state of the art literature on methodologies and applications. Sustainability 8(1):37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R (2013) A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(4):1012–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yadav N, Goraya MS (2018) Two-way ranking based service mapping in cloud environment. Future Gener Comput Syst 81:53–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Chang V (2018) NMCDA: a framework for evaluating cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 86:12–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ergu D, Kou G, Peng Y, Shi Y (2011) The analytic hierarchy process: task scheduling and resource allocation in cloud computing environment. J Supercomput 64(3):835–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Meesariganda R, Ishizaka A (2017) Mapping verbal AHP scale to numerical scale for cloud computing strategy selection. Appl Soft Comput 53:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roy S, Pattnaik PK, Mall R (2016) A cognitive approach for evaluating the usability of storage as a service in cloud computing environment. Int J Electr Comput Eng (IJECE) 6(2):759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Toinard C, Ravier T, Cérin C, Ngoko Y (2015) The promethee method for cloud brokering with trust and assurance criteria. In: IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshop

  17. Yazir YO, Matthews C, Farahbod R, Neville S, Guitouni A, Ganti S, Coady Y (2010) Dynamic resource allocation in computing clouds using distributed multiple criteria decision analysis. In: IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing

  18. Kabir MH, Shoja GC, Ganti S (2014) VM placement algorithms for hierarchical cloud infrastructure. In: IEEE 6th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science

  19. Sidhu J, Singh S (2016) Using the improved PROMETHEE for selection of trustworthy cloud database servers. Int Arab J Inf Technol 16(2):194–202

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lu L, Yuan Y (2018) A novel TOPSIS evaluation scheme for cloud service trustworthiness combining objective and subjective aspects. J Syst Softw 143:71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Achar R, Thilagam PS (2014) A broker based approach for cloud provider selection. In: International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI)

  22. Ma F, Liu F, Liu Z (2012) Distributed load balancing allocation of virtual machine in cloud data center. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Automation Engineering

  23. Ma F, Liu Z (2015) Multi-objective optimization for dynamic virtual machine management in cloud data center. In: 6th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS)

  24. Lo CC, Chen DY, Tsai CF, Chao KM (2010) Service selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS method. In: IEEE 24th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops

  25. Mu B, Li S, Yuan S (2014) QoS-aware cloud service selection based on uncertain user preference. In: Rough sets and knowledge technology. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 589–600

  26. Sohaib O, Naderpour M, Hussain W, Martinez L (2019) Cloud computing model selection for e-commerce enterprises using a new 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic decision-making method. Comput Ind Eng 132:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rădulescu CZ, Rădulescu IC (2017) An extended TOPSIS approach for ranking cloud service providers. Stud Inform Control 26(2):183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nayak SC, Tripathy C (2018) Deadline based task scheduling using multi-criteria decision-making in cloud environment. Ain Shams Eng J 9(4):3315–3324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mohammd H, Mahmood AK (2013) Trust-based service selection in public cloud computing using fuzzy modified VIKOR method. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 7(9):211–220

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rehman ZU, Hussain OK, Chang E, Dillon T (2015) Decision-making framework for user-based inter-cloud service migration. Electron Commer Res Appl 14(6):523–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kassabi HT, Serhani MA (2017) De-centralized reputation-based trust model to discriminate between cloud providers capable of processing Big Data. In: IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress)

  32. Ruby Annette J, Banu A, Subash Chandran P (2016) Comparison of multi criteria decision making algorithms for ranking cloud renderfarm services. Indian J Sci Technol 9(31):1–5

  33. Rehman ZU, Hussain OK, Hussain FK (2013) Parallel cloud service selection and ranking based on QoS history. Int J Parallel Program 42(5):820–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Satya MN, Reddy LV (2018) Evaluating consumer trust using topsis and vikor methods in cloud analyst tool. Int J Curr Adv Res 7(6):13841–13847

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kumar RR, Mishra S, Kumar C (2017) Prioritizing the solution of cloud service selection using integrated MCDM methods under fuzzy environment. J Supercomput 73(11):4652–4682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sun L, Ma J, Zhang Y, Dong H, Hussain FK (2016) Cloud-FuSeR: fuzzy ontology and MCDM based cloud service selection. Future Gener Comput Syst 57:42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jatoth GR, Gangadharan U, Fiore R Buyya (2018) SELCLOUD: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for selection of cloud services. Soft Comput 23(13):4701–4715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Khan MZ, Qamar U (2015) Towards service evaluation and ranking model for cloud infrastructure selection. In: IEEE 12th International Conference on Ubiquitous Intelligence and Computing and 2015 IEEE 12th International Conference on Autonomic and Trusted Computing and 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Scalable Computing and Communications and Its Associated Workshops (UIC-ATC-ScalCom)

  39. Garg R, Naudts B, Verbrugge S, Stiller B (2015) Modeling legal and regulative requirements for ranking alternatives of cloud-based services. In: IEEE Eighth International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW)

  40. Do QN, Hussain FK (2013) A hybrid approach for the personalization of cloud-based e-governance services. Int J High Perform Comput Netw 7(3):205–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fatih G, Hidayanto AN, Alfina I, Purwandari B (2015) Framework for selecting cloud deployment model in government institutions using BCOR, entropy and TOPSIS approach. Int J Innov Learn 18(1):81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Li X, Yin C, Liu F (2017) A trust estimation method of machine tool resources in the cloud environment. J Stat Comput Simul 87(13):2572–2580

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Bhushan S, Pradeep RC (2016) A network QoS aware service ranking using hybrid AHP-PROMETHEE method in multi-cloud domain. Int J Eng Res Afr 24:153–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee B, Oh KH, Park HJ, Kim UM, Youn HY (2014) Resource reallocation of virtual machine in cloud computing with MCDM algorithm. In: International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery

  45. Li L, Hang J, Gao Y, Mu C (2017) Using an integrated group decision method based on SVM, TFN-RS-AHP, and TOPSIS-CD for cloud service supplier selection. In: Mathematical Problems in Engineering, pp 1–14

  46. Rehman ZU, Hussain OK, Hussain FK (2012) IaaS cloud selection using MCDM methods. In: IEEE Ninth International Conference on e-Business Engineering

  47. Liu S, Chan FT, Ran W (2016) Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: an improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes. Expert Syst Appl 55:37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Subramanian T, Savarimuthu V (2016) Cloud service evaluation and selection using fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach in marketplace. Int J Fuzzy Syst Appl 5(2):118–153

    Google Scholar 

  49. Boutkhoum O, Hanine M, Agouti T, Tikniouine A (2017) A decision-making approach based on fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS methodology for selecting the appropriate cloud solution to manage Big Data projects. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 8(Suppl 2):1237–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Su CH, Tzeng GH, Tseng HL (2012) Improving cloud computing service in fuzzy environment—combining fuzzy DANP and fuzzy VIKOR with a new hybrid FMCDM model. In: International Conference on Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications (iFUZZY2012)

  51. Fang SC, Tsao JH (2009) Entropy optimization: Shannon measure of entropy and its properties. SpringerReference

  52. Regions and availability zones (n.d.). https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/using-regions-availability-zones.html. Accessed 3 Mar 2019

  53. Weimer L (2009) Cost-benefit analysis and public policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307177.ch1

  54. Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Global sensitivity analysis for importance assessment. In: Sensitivity analysis in practice. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870958.ch2

  55. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2017) Introduction to sensitivity analysis. In: Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470725184.ch1

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal, Punjab, India

    Neeraj, Major Singh Goraya & Damanpreet Singh

Authors
  1. Neeraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Major Singh Goraya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Damanpreet Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neeraj.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neeraj, Goraya, M.S. & Singh, D. A comparative analysis of prominently used MCDM methods in cloud environment. J Supercomput 77, 3422–3449 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03393-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03393-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation