Applied Intelligence

, 25:131 | Cite as

The catallaxy approach for decentralized economic-based allocation in Grid resource and service markets

  • Oscar Ardaiz
  • Pau Artigas
  • Torsten Eymann
  • Felix Freitag
  • Leandro Navarro
  • Michael Reinicke
Article

Abstract

Efficient resource allocation in dynamic large-scale environments is one of the challenges of Grids. In centralized economic-based allocation approaches, the user requests can be matched to the fastest, cheapest or most available resource. This approach, however, shows limitations in scalability and in dynamic environments. In this paper, we explore a decentralized economic approach for resource allocation in Grid markets based on the Catallaxy paradigm. Catallactic agents discover selling nodes in the resource and service Grid markets, and negotiate with each other maximizing their utility by following a strategy. By means of simulations, we evaluate the behavior of the approach, its resource allocation efficiency and its performance with different demand loads in a number of Grid density and dynamic environments. Our results indicate that while the decentralized economic approach based on Catallaxy applied to Grid markets shows similar efficiency to a centralized system, its decentralized operation provides greater advantages: scalability to demand and offer, and robustness in dynamic environments.

Keywords

Decentralized allocation Economic-based allocation Grid markets 

References

  1. 1.
    Foster I, Kesselman C (1997) Globus: A metacomputing infrastructure toolkit. Intl J. Supercomputer Applications 11(2):115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen G, Benger W, Goodale T, Hege H, Lanfermann G, Merzky A, Radke T, Seidel E (2000) The cactus code: A problem solving environment for the grid. In: Proc. High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC-2000) IEEE Computer Society, pp. 253–260Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoschek W, Jaen-Martinez J, Samar A, Stockinger H, Stockinger K (2000) Data management in an international data grid project. In: IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Grid Computing Grid’2000, Bangalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foster I, Iaminitchi A (2003) On death, taxes and the convergence of peer-to-peer and grid computing. In: 2nd International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS’03), Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eymann T, Padovan B, Schoder D (2000) The catallaxy as a new paradigm for the design of information systems. In: Proc. of The World Computer Congress 2000 of the International Federation for Information Processing, Beijing PR ChinaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grimshaw AS, Wulf WA, et al. (1997) The legion vision of a worldwide virtual computer. Comm. of the ACM 40(1):39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frey J, Tannenbaum T, et al. (2002) Condor-G: A computation management agent for multi-institutional grids. Cluster Computing 5(3):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foster I, Kesselman C, Lee C, Lindell B, Nahrstedt K, Roy A (1999) A distributed resource management architecture that supports advance reservation and co-allocations. In: International Workshop on Quality of Service, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ripeanu M (2001) Peer-to-peer architecture case study: Gnutella network analysis. In: 1st First Intl. Conference in on Peer-to-Peer Networks, Linköpings Universitet, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke I, Sandberg O, Wiley B, Hong TW (2000) Freenet: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In: Proc. of the ICSI Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability. International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson D, Cobb J, Korpela E, Lebofsky M, Werthimer D (2002) SETI@home: An experiment in public-resource computing. Comm. of the ACM 45(11), ACM Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chien A, Calder B, Elbert S, Bhatia K (2003) Entropia: Architecture and performance of an enterprise desktop Grid system. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 63(5), Academic Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huberman BA (1988) The ecology of computation. Studies in computer science and artificial intelligence. Elsevier Science Ltd AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clearwater SH (1996) Market-based control. A paradigm for distributed resource allocation. Singapore: World ScientificGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller MS, Drexler KE, Markets and computation: Agoric open systems. The ecology of computation. B. A. Huberman. Amsterdam, North Holland, pp 133–176Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stonebraker M, Devine R, et al. (1994) An economic paradigm for query processing and data migration in Mariposa. In: 3rd International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems, Austin, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Regev O, Nisan N (1998) The POPCORN market—an online market for computational resources. In: Intl. Conference on Information and Computation Economies, Charleston, USA, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Waldspurger CA, Hogg T, et al. (1992) Spawn: A distributed computational economy. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(2):103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buyya R, Abramson D, Giddy J (2001) A case for economy grid architecture for service-oriented grid computing. In: Proc. 10th IEEE International Heterogeneous Computing Workshop (HCW 2001). San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolski R, Plank JS, Brevik J, Bryan T (2001) Analyzing market-based resource allocation strategies for the computational grid. The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, Sage Science Press Fall 15(3):258–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bell HB, Cameron DG, Capozza L, Millar AP, Stockinger K, Zini F (2002) Simulation of dynamic grid replication strategies in optorSim. In: proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Grid Computing, Baltimore USAGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gomoluch J, Schroeder M (2003) Market-based resource allocation for grid computing: A model and simulation. In: 1st International Workshop on Middleware for Grid Computing, Rio de Janeiro BrazilGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schnizler B, Neumann D, Weinhardt C (2004) Resource allocation in computational grids—a market engineering approach. In: Proceedings of The Third Workshop on e-Business (WeB 2004), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheng JQ, Wellman MP (1998) The WALRAS algorithm: A convergent distributed implementation of general equilibrium outcomes. Computational Economics 12:1–24MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ping TT, Sodhy GC, Yong CH, Haron F, Buyya R (2004) A market-based scheduler for JXTA-based peer-to-peer computing system. ICCSA 2004 LNCS 3046, pp 147–157Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hausheer D, Stiller B (2005) Decentralized auction-based pricing with peermart. In: 9th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2005), Nice FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Myerson R, Satterthwaite M (1983) Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. Journal of Economic Theory 29:265–281MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilson R (1985) Incentive efficiency of double auctions. Econometrica 53(5):1101–1116MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hayek FA, Bartley WW, Klein PG, Caldwell B (1989) The collected works of F.A. Hayek. University of Chicago Press ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoppmann E (1999) Unwissenheit, wirtschaftsordnung und staatsgewalt. freiheit, wettbewerb und wirtschaftsordnung. V. Vanberg. Freiburg, Haufe Verlag, pp 135–169Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmid B, Lindemann M (1998) Elements of a reference model for electronic markets. In: Proceedings of the 31st Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Sciences. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos CAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenschein JS, Zlotkin G (1994) Rules of encounter—designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guttman R, Maes P (1998) Agent-mediated integrative negotiation for retail electronic commerce. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Trading (AMET’98). Minneapolis USAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sierra C (2001) A roadmap for agent-mediated electronic commerce. In: Sierra C, Dignum F (eds) Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce—The European AgentLink Perspective. Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wellman MP (1996) Market-oriented programming: Some early lessons. In: Clearwater SH (ed) Market-Based Control: A Paradigm for Distributed Resource Allocation. Singapore: World Scientific, pp 74–95Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pruitt DG (1981) Negotiation behavior, Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Foster I, Kesselman C, Nick J, Tuecke S (2002) Grid services for distributed system integration. Computer 35(6)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    T-Online AG: T-Online PDF Creator: Easy document conversion. 2003, http://www.t-online.net/c/07/30/40/730406.html
  39. 39.
    Czajkowski K, Fitzgerald S, Foster I, Kesselman C (2001) Grid information services for distributed resource sharing. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC-10). IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ratnasamy S, Francis P, Handley M, Karp R, Shenker S (2001) A scalable content-addressable network. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, San Francisco USAGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tyan HY, Hou CJ (2001) JavaSim: A component-based compositional network simulation environment. Western Simulation Multiconference—Communication Networks And Distributed Systems Modeling And SimulationGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smith R (1980) The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers 29(12)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Padovan B, Sackmann S, Eymann T, Pippow I (2001) A prototype for an agentbased secure electronic marketplace including reputation tracking mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Sciences. IEEE Computer Society, Outrigger Wailea Resort, MauiGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Eymann T (2001) Co-evolution of bargaining strategies in a decentralized multi-agent system. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Fall 2001 Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, North Falmouth, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Ardaiz
    • 1
  • Pau Artigas
    • 1
  • Torsten Eymann
    • 2
  • Felix Freitag
    • 1
  • Leandro Navarro
    • 1
  • Michael Reinicke
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Architecture DepartmentPolytechnic University of CataloniaSpain
  2. 2.Institute for Computer Science and Social StudiesAlbert-Ludwigs-UniversityFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations