Advertisement

The Journal of Supercomputing

, Volume 73, Issue 6, pp 2730–2762 | Cite as

SLA-based task scheduling algorithms for heterogeneous multi-cloud environment

  • Sanjaya K. Panda
  • Prasanta K. Jana
Article

Abstract

Service-level agreement (SLA) is a major issue in cloud computing because it defines important parameters such as quality of service, uptime, downtime, period of service, pricing, and security. However, the service may vary from one cloud service provider (CSP) to another. The collaboration of the CSPs in the heterogeneous multi-cloud environment is very challenging, and it is not well covered in the recent literatures. In this paper, we present two SLA-based task scheduling algorithms, namely SLA-MCT and SLA-Min-Min for heterogeneous multi-cloud environment. The former algorithm is a single-phase scheduling, whereas the latter one is a two-phase scheduling. The proposed algorithms support three levels of SLA determined by the customers. Furthermore, the algorithms incorporate the SLA gain cost for the successful completion of the service and SLA violation cost for the unsuccessful end of the service. We simulate the proposed algorithms using benchmark and synthetic datasets. The experimental results of the proposed SLA-MCT are compared with three single-phase task scheduling algorithms, namely CLS, Execution-MCT, and Profit-MCT, and the results of the proposed SLA-Min-Min are compared with two-phase scheduling algorithms, namely Execution-Min-Min and Profit-Min-Min in terms of four performance metrics, namely makespan, average cloud utilization, gain, and penalty cost of the services. The results clearly show that the proposed algorithms properly balance between makespan and gain cost of the services in comparison with other algorithms.

Keywords

Cloud computing Service-level agreement Task scheduling Multi-cloud Minimum completion time Min-Min 

References

  1. 1.
    Gao Y, Guan H, Qi Z, Song T, Huan F, Liu L (2014) Service level agreement based energy-efficient resource management in cloud data centers. Comput Electr Eng 40:1621–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li J, Qiu M, Ming Z, Quan G, Qin X, Gu Z (2012) Online optimization for scheduling preemptable tasks on IaaS cloud system. J Parallel Distrib Comput 72:666–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Panda SK, Jana PK (2015) Efficient task scheduling algorithms for heterogeneous multi-cloud environment. J Supercomput 71(4):1505–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Durao F, Carvalho JFS, Fonseka A, Garcia VC (2014) A systematic review on cloud computing. J Supercomput 68(3):1321–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Son S, Jung G, Jun SC (2013) An SLA-based cloud computing that facilitates resource allocation in the distributed data centers of a cloud provider. J Supercomput 64(2):606–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cloud Service Level Agreement Standardisation Guidelines. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=6138. Accessed on 4 June 2015
  7. 7.
    Liu L, Mei H, Xie B (2016) Towards a multi-QoS human-centric cloud computing load balance resource allocation method. J Supercomput 72(7):2488–2501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Son S, Kang D, Huh SP, Kim W, Choi W (2016) Adaptive trade-off strategy for bargaining-based multi-objective SLA establishment under varying cloud workload. J Supercomput 72(4):1597–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ranaldo N, Zimeo E (2016) Capacity-driven utility model for service level agreement negotiation of cloud services. Future Gen Comput Syst 55:186–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baset SA (2012) Cloud SLAs: present and future. ACM SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev 46:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emeakaroha VC, Netto MAS, Calheiros RN, Brandic I, Buyya R, Rose CAFD (2012) Towards autonomic detection of SLA violations in cloud infrastructures. Future Gen Comput Syst 28:1017–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maurer M, Emeakaroha VC, Brandic I, Altmann J (2012) Cost-benefit analysis of an SLA mapping approach for defining standardized cloud computing goods. Future Gen Comput Syst 28:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu F, Wu Q, Tan Y (2015) Workflow scheduling in cloud: a survey. J Supercomput 71(9):3373–3418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Ali S, Siegel HJ, Maheswaran M, Hensgen D, Ali S (2000) Task execution time modeling for heterogeneous computing systems. In: 9th Heterogeneous Computing Workshop. IEEE Computer Society, pp 185–200Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freund RF, Gherrity M, Ambrosius S, Campbell M, Halderman M, Hensgen D, Keith E, Kidd T, Kussow M, Lima JD, Mirabile F, Moore L, Rust B, Siegel HJ (1998) Scheduling resources in multi-user, heterogeneous, computing environments with SmartNet. In: 7th IEEE Heterogeneous Computing Workshop, pp 184–199Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibarra OH, Kim CE (1977) Heuristic algorithms for scheduling independent tasks on nonidentical processors. J Assoc Comput Mach 24(2):280–289MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu K, Yahyapour R, Wieder P, Yaqub E, Abdullah M, Schloer B, Kotsokalis C (2016) Fault-tolerant service level agreement lifecycle management in clouds using actor system. Future Gen Comput Syst 54:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garcia AG, Espert IB, Garcia VH (2014) SLA-driven dynamic cloud resource management. Future Gen Comput Syst 31:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Aazam M, Huh E, St-Hilaire M, Lung C, Lambadaris I (2016) Cloud customer’s historical record based resource pricing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 27(7):1929–1940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Franke U, Buschle M (2016) Experimental evidence on decision-making in availability service level agreements. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Manage 13(1):58–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abawajy J, Fudzee MF, Hassan MM, Alrubaian M (2015) Service level agreement management framework for utility-oriented computing platforms. J Supercomput 71(11):4287–4303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ivanovic D, Carro M, Hermenegildo M (2011) Constraint-based runtime prediction of SLA violation in service orchestrations. In: 9th International Conference on Service-oriented Computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 62–76Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang S, Yan K, Liao W, Wang S (2010) Towards a load balancing in a three-level cloud computing network. In: 3rd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, vol 1, pp 108–113Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Panda SK, Jana PK (2016) Normalization-based task scheduling algorithms for heterogeneous multi-cloud environment, information systems frontiers. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Panda SK, Jana PK (2014) An efficient task scheduling algorithm for heterogeneous multi-cloud environment. In: 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, IEEE, pp 1204–1209Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panda SK, Gupta I, Jana PK (2015) Allocation-aware task scheduling for heterogeneous multi-cloud systems. In: 2nd International Symposium on Big Data and Cloud Computing Challenges, vol 50. Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier, pp 176–184Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Farokhi S, Jrad F, Brandic I, Streit A (2014) Hierarchical SLA-based service selection for multi-cloud environments. In: 4th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science, pp 722–734Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abdullahi M, Ngadi MA, Abdulhamid SM (2016) Symbiotic organism search optimization based task scheduling in cloud computing environment. Future Gen Comput Syst 56:640–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Loo SM, Wells BE (2006) Task scheduling in a finite-resource, reconfigurable hardware/software codesign environment. INFORMS J Comput 18(2):151–172CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Demiroz B, Topcuoglu HR (2006) Static task scheduling with a unified objective on time and resource domains. Comput J 49(6):731–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xhafa F, Carretero J, Barolli L, Durresi A (2007) Immediate mode scheduling in grid systems. Int J Web Grid Serv 3(2):219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xhafa F, Barolli L, Durresi A (2007) Batch mode scheduling in grid systems. Int J Web Grid Serv 3(1):19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Braun TD, Siegel HJ, Beck N, Boloni LL, Maheswaran M, Reuther AI, Robertson JP, Theys MD, Yao B, Hensgen D, Freund RF (2001) A comparison of eleven static heuristics for mapping a class of independent tasks onto heterogeneous distributed computing systems. J Parallel Distrib Comput 61(6):810–837CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maheswaran M, Ali S, Siegel HJ, Hensgen D, Freund RF (1999) Dynamic mapping of a class of independent tasks onto heterogeneous computing systems. J Parallel Distrib Comput 59:107–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Skewness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness, Accessed on 8th June 2015
  38. 38.
    XiaoShan H, XianHe S, Laszewski GV (2003) QoS guided min-min heuristic for grid task scheduling. J Comput Sci Technol 18(4):442–451CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Decai H, Yuan Y, Li-jun Z, Ke-qin Z (2009) Research on tasks scheduling algorithms for dynamic and uncertain computing grid based on a+bi connection number of SPA. J Softw 4(10):1102–1109Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Miriam DDH, Easwarakumar KS (2010) A double min-min algorithm for task metascheduler on hypercubic P2P grid systems. Int J Comput Sci Issues 7(5):8–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering and Information TechnologyVeer Surendra Sai University of TechnologyBurlaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (ISM)DhanbadIndia

Personalised recommendations