Engineering with Computers

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 581–592 | Cite as

Prediction-based proactive load balancing approach through VM migration

Original Article


The ever-growing intricacy and dynamicity of Cloud Computing Systems has created a need for Proactive Load Balancing which is an effective approach to improve the scalability of today’s Cloud services. In order to manage the load proactively on the Cloud system during application execution, load should be predicted through machine learning approaches and handled through VM migration approaches. Thus, this paper formulates an effort to focus on the research problem of designing a prediction-based approach for facilitating proactive load balancing through the prediction of multiple resource utilization parameters in Cloud. The involvement of this paper is twofold. Firstly, various machine learning approaches have been tested and compared for predicting host overutilization as well as underutilization. Secondly, the load prediction model having maximum accuracy from the tested models has been utilized for implementing the proactive VM migration using multiple resource utilization parameters. Further, the proposed technique has been validated through performance evaluation parameters using CloudSim and Weka toolkits. The simulation results clearly demonstrate that the proposed approach is effective for handling VM migration, reducing SLA Violations, VM migrations, execution mean and standard deviation time.


Cloud Computing VM migration Fault tolerance  Machine learning 


  1. 1.
    Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, Joseph AD, Katz R (2009) Above the Clouds: a Berkeley view of Cloud Computing. Commun ACM 53(4):1–25Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang Q, Cheng L, Boutaba R (2010) Cloud Computing: state-of-the-art and research challenges. J Internet Serv Appl 1:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calheiros RN, Ranjan R, Beloglazov A, Rose CAFD, Buyya R (2011) CloudSim: a toolkit for modelling and simulation of Cloud Computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Softw Pract Exp 41:23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beloglazov A, Buyya R (2012) Optimal online deterministic algorithms and adaptive heuristics for energy and performance efficient dynamic consolidation of virtual machines in Cloud data centers. J Concurr Comput Pract Exp 24:1397–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silva JN, Veiga L, Ferreira P (2008) Heuristic for resources allocation on utility computing infrastructures. In: MGC08 proceedings of the 6th international workshop on middleware for grid computing. ACM, New York, NY, USA, p 16Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lim HC, Babu S, Chase JS, Parekh SS (2009) Automated control in Cloud Computing: challenges and opportunities. In: ACDC09: proceedings of the 1st workshop on automated control for datacenters and Clouds. ACM, New York, NY, USA, p 1318Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caron E, Desprez F, Muresan A (2010) Forecasting for Cloud Computing on-demand resources based on pattern matching. Technical Report, INRIAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kupferman J, Silverman J, Jara P, Browne J (2010) Scaling into the Cloud. Advanced Operating System, p 1–10.
  9. 9.
    Catal C, Diri B (2009) A systematic review of software fault prediction studies. Expert Syst Appl 36:7346–7354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Islam S, Keunga J, Lee K, Liu A (2012) Empirical prediction models for adaptive resource provisioning in the cloud. Future Gener Comput Syst 28:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kousiouris G, Menychtasa A, Kyriazis D, Gogouvitis S, Varvarigou T (2014) Dynamic, behavioural-based estimation of resource provisioning based on high-level application terms in Cloud platforms. Future Gener Comput Syst 32:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ren X, Lin R, Zou H (2011) A dynamic load balancing strategy for Cloud Computing platform based on exponential smoothing forecast. In: Proceedings of IEEE CCIS2011, pp 220–224Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aniello L, Bonomi S, Lombardi F, Zelli A, Baldoni R (2014) An architecture for automatic scaling of replicated services. In: Noubir G, Raynal M (eds) Networked Systems. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 122–137Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bala A, Chana I (2014) Intelligent failure prediction models for scientific workflows. Expert Syst Appl 42(3):980–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abdi H (2007) Multiple correlation coefficients. In: Salkind NJ (ed) Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, pp 648–651Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bala A, Chana I (2013) VM migration approach for autonomic fault tolerance in Cloud Computing. In: International conference of grid and Cloud applications GCA13. Las Vegas, USA, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bala A, Chana I (2014) Autonomic fault tolerant scheduling approach for scientific workflows in Cloud Computing. Concurr Eng Res Appl Sage Publ (Accepted)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDDExplorations 11:10–18Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guo L, Ma Y, Cukic B, Singh H (2004) Robust prediction of fault-proneness by random forests. In: Proceedings of the 15th international symposium on software reliability engineering, pp 417–428Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salfner F, Lenk M, Malek M (2010) A survey of online failure prediction methods. ACM Comput Surv 42:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malhotra R, Jain A (2012) Fault prediction using statistical and machine learning methods for improving software quality. J Inf Process Syst 8:241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aggarwal KK, Singh Y, Kaur A, Malhotra R (2009) Empirical analysis for investigating the effect of object-oriented metrics on fault proneness: a replicated case study. Softw Process Improv Pract 16:39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentThapar UniversityPatialaIndia

Personalised recommendations