Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 863–871 | Cite as

An efficient peer-to-peer and distributed scheduling for cloud and grid computing

  • Seungmin Rho
  • Hangbae Chang
  • Sanggeun Kim
  • Yang Sun Lee
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses a framework for distributed resource management. The framework has the following novel features. First, the resource management system is distributed using resource content information that is characterized by system properties. We argue that a distributed system based on resource content is sufficient to satisfy specific scheduling requests for global Quality of Service (QoS) considering workload balance across a grid. Second, the distributed system constructs a hierarchical peer-to-peer network. This peered network provides an efficient message routing mechanism. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed framework is proficient to satisfy QoS in distributed environment.

Keywords

Distributed resource management Peer to peer scheduling Quality of service Resource clustering 

References

  1. 1.
    Avery P, Foster I “The GriPhyN Project:Towards Petascale Virtual-Data Grids,” GriPhyN Technical Report 2000-1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foster I, Kesselman C, Tuecke S (2001) The anatomy of the grid: enabling scalable virtual organizations. Int J Supercomputer ApplGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sloan Digital Sky Survey, http://www.sdss.org, 2004
  4. 4.
    Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, http://ligo.caltech.edu, 2004
  5. 5.
    The Compact Muon Solenoid, “An experiment for the Large Hadron Collider at CERN,” http://cmsinfo.cern.ch/Welcome.html/, 2004
  6. 6.
    The ATLAS Experiment, http://atlasexperiment.org, 2004
  7. 7.
    Buyya R “Economic-based Distributed Resource Management and Scheduling for Grid Computing,” Ph.D Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, April, 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Min R, Maheswaran M (2002) “Scheduling Co-Reservations with Priorities in Grid Computing Systems,” Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the GridGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spooner DP, Cao J, Turner JD, Lim HN, Choi Keung, Jarvis SA, Nudd GR (2002) “Localised Workload Management Using Performance Prediction and QoS Contracts,” 18th Annual UK Performance Engineering WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    In J, Lee S, Rho S, Park JH (2011) Policy-based scheduling and resource allocation for multimedia communication on grid computing environment. IEEE Syst J 5(4):451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    In J, Park JH (2011) SPHINX: a scheduling middleware for data intensive applications on a grid. Int J Internet Protoc Technol 6(3):184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Czajkowski K, Fitzgerald S, Foster I, Kesselman C “Grid Information Services for Distributed Resource Sharing,” Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, IEEE Press, August 2001Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doval D, O’Mahony D, Overlay Networks, “A Scalable Alternative for P2P,” IEEE Internet Computing, August 2003Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ratnasamy S, Francis P, Handley M, Karp R, Shenker S (2001) “A scalable content-addressable network,” ACM SIGCOMMGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stoica I, Morris R, Karger D, Kaashoek MF, Balakrishman H (2001) “Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer loopup service for internet applications,” ACM SIGCOMMGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhao B, Kubiatowicz J, Joseph A (2001) “Tapestry: An infrastructure for fault-tolerant wide-area location and routing,” Technical report, U. C. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crespo A, Garcia-Molina H “Semantic Overlay Networks for P2P Systems,” Technical report, Stanford University, Jan. 2003Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoschek W “A Unified Peer-to-Peer Database Framework for Scalable Service and Resource Discovery,” Proc. of the International IEEE/ACM Workshop on Grid Computing, Baltimore, USA, Nov. 2002Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bradley D “Condor-G Matchmaking in USCMS,” Condor technical report, University of Wisconsin, Nov. 2003Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaffille S, Loesing K, Wirtz G, “Distributed Service Discovery with Guarantees in Peer-to-Peer Networks using Distributed Hashtables,” International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA 2005), pp. 578–584, June 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yuh-Jzer Joung, Li-Wei Yang, Chien-Tse Fang, “Keyword Search in DHT-based Peer-to-Peer Networks,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 25, no. 1, January 2007Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Legtchenko S, Monnet S, Sens P, Muller G, “RelaxDHT: A churn-resilient replication strategy for peer-to-peer distributed hash-tables,” ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) Vol. 7, Iss. 2, July 2012Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carzaniga A, Wolf AL “Content-based Networking: A New Communication infrastructure,” NSF Workshop on an infrastructure for Mobile and Wireless Systems, Scottsdale, AZ, October, 2001Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carzaniga A, Rutherford MJ, Wolf AL “A Routing Scheme for Content-Based Networking,” Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOMM 2004, Hong Kong China, March, 2004Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chand R, Felber P “A Scalable Protocol for Content-Based Routing in Overlay Networks,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications, Cambridge, MA, April, 2003Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aron M, Sanders D, Druschel P, Zwaenepoel W “Scalable Content-aware Request Distribution in Cluster-based Network Servers,” Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Usenix Technical Conference, San Diego, CA, June, 2000Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhu Y, Hu Y, “Ferry: An Architecture for Content-Based Publish/Subscribe Services on P2P Networks,” Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP’05), Oslo, Norway, June 14–17, 2005Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lu J, Callan J, “Content-Based Peer-to-Peer Network Overlay for Full-Text Federated Search,” 8th International Conference on Recherche d’Information Assistée par Ordinateur (RIAO 2007), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 30–June 1, 2007Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pushp S, Ranjan P, “Hybrid Content Distribution Network with a P2P based Streaming Protocol,” The 7th International ICST Conference on Broadband Communications, Networks, and Systems (BROADNETS 2010), Athens, Greece, October 25–27, 2010Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chen K, Shen H, Zhang H (Feb. 2014) Leveraging social networks for P2P content-based file sharing in disconnected MANETs. IEEE Trans Mob Comput 13(2):235–249Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paul A, Rho S, Bharnitharan K, “Interactive Scheduling for Mobile Multimedia Service in M2M Environment,” Multimedia Tools and Applications (MTAP), Springer (SCIE), May 2013. doi:10.1007/s11042-013-1490-0
  32. 32.
    Han BJ, Jung I-Y, Kim K-H, Lee D, Rho S, Jeong CS, “Cloud-based active content collaboration platform using multimedia processing,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2013:63, March 6, 2013Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ou C-W, Ranka S (1997) Parallel incremental graph partitioning. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 8(8):884–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kumar V, “Graph Partitioning for Multi-phase and Multi-physics Computations,” IEEE International Conference on Cluster Computing, Newport Beach, California, October 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seungmin Rho
    • 1
  • Hangbae Chang
    • 2
  • Sanggeun Kim
    • 3
  • Yang Sun Lee
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of MultimediaSungkyul UniversityAnyang-siSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Business AdministrationChung-Ang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Division of Computer EngineeringSungkyul UniversityAnyang-siSouth Korea
  4. 4.Division of Convergence Computer & MediaMokwon UniversityDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations