Advertisement

Workload-driven coordination between virtual machine allocation and task scheduling

  • Zheng XiaoEmail author
  • Bangyong Wang
  • Xing Li
  • Jiayi DuEmail author
Advances in Parallel and Distributed Computing for Neural Computing
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

The current task scheduling is separated from the virtual machine (VM) allocation, which, to some extent, wastes resources or degrades application performance. The scheduling algorithm influences the demand of VMs in terms of service-level agreement, while the number of VMs determines the performance of task scheduling. Workload plays an indispensable role in both dynamic VM allocation and task scheduling. To address this problem, we coordinate task scheduling and VM allocation based on workload characteristics. Workload is empirically time-varying and stochastic. We demonstrate that the acquired workload data set has Markov property which can be modeled as a Markov chain. Then, three workload characteristic operators are extracted: persistence, recurrence and entropy, which quantify the relative stability, burstiness, and unpredictability of the workload, respectively. Experiments indicate that the persistence and recurrence of workloads has a direct bearing on the average response time and resource utilization of the system. A nonlinear model between the load characteristic operators and the number of VMs is established. In order to test the performance of the collaborative framework, we design a scheduling algorithm based on genetic algorithm (GA), which takes the estimated number of VMs as input and the task completion time as the optimization target. Simulation experiments have been performed on the CloudSim platform, testifying that the estimated average absolute VMs error is only 2.6%. The GA-based task scheduling algorithm could improve resource utilization and reduce task completion time compared with the first come first serve and greedy algorithm. The proposed coordination mechanism in this paper has proved able to find the optimal match and reduce the resource cost by utilizing the interaction between VM allocation and task scheduling.

Keywords

VM allocation Task scheduling Workload characteristic Markov model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is partially supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61872129 and 61802444) and Doctoral Scientific Research Foundation of Central South University of Forestry and Technology (No. 2016YJ047).

References

  1. 1.
    Buyya R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S (2008) Market-oriented cloud computing: vision, hype, and reality for delivering it services as computing utilities. In: International Conferences on High Performance Computing and Communications, vol 11, no 4. IEEE, pp 5–13Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crovella ME, Bestavros A (1996) Self-similarity in world wide web traffic: evidence and possible causes. In: ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on measurement and modeling of computer systems, pp 160–169Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dave YP, Shelat AS, Patel DS, Jhaveri RH (2015) Various job scheduling algorithms in cloud computing: a survey. In: International conference on information communication and embedded systems, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di S, Kondo D, Cirne W (2012) Characterization and comparison of cloud versus grid workloads. In: IEEE international conference on CLUSTER computing, pp 230–238Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dikaiakos MD, Katsaros D, Mehra P, Pallis G, Vakali A (2009) Cloud computing: distributed internet computing for it and scientific research. IEEE Internet Comput 13(5):10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duy TVT, Sato Y, Inoguchi Y (2010) Performance evaluation of a green scheduling algorithm for energy savings in cloud computing. In: IEEE international symposium on parallel & distributed processing workshops & Phd forum, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erramilli A, Narayan O, Willinger W (1996) Experimental queueing analysis with long-range dependent packet traffic. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 4(2):209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fakhfakh F, Kacem HH, Kacem AH (2014) Workflow scheduling in cloud computing: a survey. In: Enterprise distributed object computing conference workshops and demonstrations, pp 372–378Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fallah M, Ghobaei Arani M, Maeen M (2015) Nasla: novel auto scaling approach based on learning automata for web application in cloud computing environment. Int J Comput Appl 113(2):18–23Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ganapathi A, Chen Y, Fox A, Katz R, Patterson D (2010) Statistics-driven workload modeling for the cloud. In: IEEE international conference on data engineering workshops, pp 87–92Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gong M, Jiao L, Zhang L (2010) Baldwinian learning in clonal selection algorithm for optimization. Inf Sci 180(8):1218–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hirofuchi T, Nakada H, Ogawa H, Itoh S, Sekiguchi S (2010) Eliminating datacenter idle power with dynamic and intelligent VM relocation. In: de Leon F. de Carvalho AP, Rodríguez-González S, De Paz Santana JF, Rodríguez JMC (eds) Distributed computing and artificial intelligence. Advances in intelligent and soft computing, vol 79. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung JK, Kim NU, Jung SM, Chung TM (2013) Improved CloudSim for simulating QoS-based cloud services. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan A, Yan X, Tao S, Anerousis N (2012)Workload characterization and prediction in the cloud: a multiple time series approach. In: Network operations and management symposium, pp 1287–1294Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lei L, Zhong Z, Zheng K, Chen J (2013) Challenges on wireless heterogeneous networks for mobile cloud computing. IEEE Wirel Commun 20(3):34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mathew T, Sekaran KC, Jose J (2014) Study and analysis of various task scheduling algorithms in the cloud computing environment. In: International conference on advances in computing, communications and informatics, pp 658–664Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matthews J, Garfinkel T, Hoff C, Wheeler J (2009) Virtual machine contracts for datacenter and cloud computing environments, pp 25–30Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mazzucco M, Dyachuk D (2012) Optimizing cloud providers revenues via energy efficient server allocation. Sustain Comput Inform Syst 2(1):1–12Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mi N, Zhang Q, Riska A, Smirni E, Riedel E (2007) Performance impacts of auto-correlated flows in multi-tiered systems. Perform Eval 64(9–12):1082–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mishra AK, Hellerstein JL, Cirne W, Das CR (2010) Towards characterizing cloud backend workloads: insights from Google compute clusters. ACM Sigmetric Perform Eval Rev 37(4):34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nakada H, Hirofuchi T, Ogawa H, Itoh S (2009) Toward virtual machine packing optimization based on genetic algorithm. In: International work-conference on artificial neural networks, pp 651–654Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patil S, Kulkarni RA, Patil SH, Balaji N (2015) Performance improvement in cloud computing through dynamic task scheduling algorithm. In: International conference on next generation computing technologies, pp 96–100Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prevost JJ, Nagothu KM, Kelley B, Mo J (2011) Prediction of cloud data center networks loads using stochastic and neural models. In: International conference on system of systems engineering, pp 276–281Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pumma S, Achalakul T, Li X (2013) Automatic vm allocation for scientific application. In: IEEE international conference on parallel and distributed systems, pp 828–833Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reiss C, Tumanov A, Ganger GR, Katz RH (2012) Towards understanding heterogeneous clouds at scale: Google trace analysisGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sallam A, Li K (2014) A multi-objective virtual machine migration policy in cloud systems. Comput J 57(2):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Skiena S (2008) The algorithm design manual, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 351–358CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tai J, Zhang J, Li J, Meleis W, Mi N (2011) Ara: adaptive resource allocation for cloud computing environments under bursty workloads. In: PERFORMANCE computing and communications conference, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tang Z, Mo Y, Li K, Li K (2014) Dynamic forecast scheduling algorithm for virtual machine placement in cloud computing environment. J Supercomput 70(3):1279–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tang Z, Qi L, Cheng Z, Li K, Khan SU, Li K (2016) An energy-efficient task scheduling algorithm in dvfs-enabled cloud environment. J Grid Comput 14(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang L, Von Laszewski G, Kunze M, Tao J (2010) Schedule distributed virtual machines in a service oriented environment. In: IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications, pp 230–236Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xiao Z, Song W, Chen Q (2013) Dynamic resource allocation using virtual machines for cloud computing environment. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 24(6):1107–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yufen Z, Yalin Z (2012) Research on markov property and its test method. Value Engineering 31(2):312–313 (in chinese) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information Science and EngineeringHunan UniversityChangshaChina
  2. 2.College of Computer and Information EngineeringCentral South University of Forestry and TechnologyChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations