Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 565–589 | Cite as

Adaptive and similarity-based tradeoff algorithms in a price-timeslot-QoS negotiation system to establish cloud SLAs

  • Seokho Son
  • Kwang Mong SimEmail author


Since participants in a Cloud may be independent bodies, some mechanisms are necessary for resolving the different preferences to establish a service-level agreement (SLA) for Cloud service reservations. Whereas there are some mechanisms for supporting SLA negotiation, there is little or no negotiation support involving price, time slot, and QoS issues concurrently for a Cloud service reservation. For the concurrent price, timeslot, and QoS negotiation, a tradeoff algorithm to generate and evaluate a proposal which consists of price, timeslot, and QoS proposals is necessary. The contribution of this work is designing a multi-issue negotiation mechanism to facilitate 1) concurrent price, time slot, and QoS negotiations including the design of QoS utility functions and 2) adaptive and similarity-based trade-off proposals for price, time slots, and level of QoS issues. The tradeoff algorithm referred to as “adaptive burst mode” is especially designed to increase negotiation speed, total utility, and to reduce computational load for evaluating proposals by adaptively generating concurrent set of proposals. The empirical results obtained from simulations carried out using an agent-based testbed suggest that using the negotiation mechanism, (i) a consumer and a provider agent have a mutually satisfying agreement on price, time slot, and QoS issues in terms of the aggregated utility and (ii) the fastest negotiation speed with (iii) comparatively lower number of evaluated proposals in a negotiation.


Cost-models and economics of grid/cloud computing Agent-based cloud computing Service level agreement Multi-issue negotiation Cloud service reservation QoS negotiation 



This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (MEST) (KRF-2009-220-D00092) and the DASAN International Faculty Fund (project code: 140316). The authors would like to thank the Guest Editors and the anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions.


  1. Brandic, I., Music, D., & Dustdar, S. (2009). Service mediation and negotiation bootstrapping as first achievements towards self-adaptable grid and cloud services. In Proc. Grids meet Autonomic Computing Workshop 2009 (GMAC 2009), In conjunction with the 6th International Conference on Autonomic Computing and Communications, Barcelona, Spain, June 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Buyya, R., Yeo, C. S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., & Brandic, I. (2009). Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Computer Systems, 25(6), 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Czajkowski, K., Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Sander, V., & Tuecke, S. (2002). SNAP: A protocol for negotiating service level agreements and coordinating resource management in distributed systems. in Proc. 8th Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing, Edinburgh Scotland, July 2002.Google Scholar
  4. Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Lee, C., Lindell, B., Nahrstedt, K., & Roy, A. (1999). A distributed resource management architecture that supports advance reservations and co-allocation. in Proc. 7th International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS99), London, UK. IEEE CS Press, LA, USA, Mar. 1999.Google Scholar
  5. Foster, I., Roy, A., & Sander, V. (2000). A quality of service architecture that combines resource reservation and application adaptation. In proc. 8th International Workshop on Quality of Service, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Gimpel, H., Ludwig, H., Dan, A., & Kearney, R. (2003). PANDA: Specifying policies for automated negotiations of service contracts. in Proc. ICSOC, vol. 2910, LNCS, New York, 2003, pp. 287–302.Google Scholar
  7. Goiri, Í., Guitart, J., & Torres, J. (2012). Economic model of a Cloud provider operating in a federated Cloud. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(4), 827–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hassan, M.M., Hossain, M.S., Sarkar, A.M.J., & Huh, E.-N. (2012). Cooperative game-based distributed resource allocation in horizontal dynamic cloud federation platform. Information Systems Frontiers, Online First. June. 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Jafarpour, N., & Khayyambashi, M. R. (2010). QoS-aware Selection of Web Service Compositions using Harmony Search Algorithm. Journal of Digital Information Management, 8(3), 160–166.Google Scholar
  10. Lang, F. (2005). Developing dynamic strategies for multi-issue automated contracting in the agent based commercial grid. in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Cluster Comput. Grid (CCGrid05), Workshop Agent-Based Grid Econ, Cardiff, U.K, pp. 342–349, May 2005.Google Scholar
  11. Lawley, R., Luck, M., Decker, K., Payne, T. R., & Moreau, L. (2003). Automated negotiation between publishers and consumers of grid notifications. Parallel Processing Letters, 13(4), 537–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maximilien, E. M., & Singh, M. P. (2004). A framework and ontology for dynamic Web services selection. IEEE Internet Computing Magazine, 8(5), 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Menasce, D. A. (2002). Qos issues in web services. IEEE Internet Computing, 6(6), 72–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Netto, M.A., Bubendorfer, K., & Buyya, R. (2007). SLA-based advance reservations with flexible and adaptive time QoS parameters. in Proc. 5th international conference on Service-Oriented Computing, Vienna, Austria, Sep. 2007.Google Scholar
  15. Papazoglou, M. P., Traverso, P., Dustdar, S., & Leymann, F. (2007). Service-oriented computing: State of the art and research challenges. Computer, 40(11), 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paschke, A., Dietrich, J., & Kuhla, K. (2005). A logic based SLA management framework. in Proc. Semantic Web and Policy Workshop (SWPW), 4th Semantic Web Conference(ISWC 2005), Galway, Ireland, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sim, K. M. (2005). Equilibria, Prudent Compromises, and the "Waiting" Game. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part B: Cybernetics, 35(4), 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sim, K. M. (2006). G-commerce, market-driven G-negotiation agents and Grid resource management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part B: Cybernetics, 36(6), 1381–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sim, K. M. (2010a). Grid resource negotiation: survey and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part C: Applications and Reviews, 40(3), 245–257.Google Scholar
  21. Sim, K. M. (2010b). Towards complex negotiation for cloud economy. In proc. the 5th International Conference on Grid and Pervasive Computing (GPC 2010), LNCS 6104, pp. 395–406, 2010. May 10–13, Hualian, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  22. Sim, K. M. (2012). Agent-based cloud computing. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 5(4), 564–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sim, K. M. (2013). Complex and Concurrent Negotiations for Multiple Interrelated e-Markets. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 43(1), 230–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sim, K. M., & Shi, B. (2010). Concurrent Negotiation and Coordination for Grid Resource Coallocation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part B, 40(3), 753–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Son, S., & Sim, K.M. (2010). An adaptive tradeoff algorithm for multi-issue SLA negotiation. in Proc. The 2010 Conference on Grid and Distributed Computing. Grid and Distributed Computing, Control and Automation. Communications in Computer and Information Science (CCIS), vol. 121, pp. 32–41, 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Son, S., & Sim, K.M. (2011). A negotiation mechanism that facilitates the price-timeslot-qos negotiation for establishing SLAs of cloud service reservation. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Networked Digital Technologies (NDT 2011), Communications in Computer and Information Science (CCIS), vol. 136, pp. 432–446, 2011.Google Scholar
  27. Son, S., & Sim, K. M. (2012). A price and time slot negotiation mechanism for cloud service reservations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part B: Cybernetics, 42(3), 713–728. doi: 10.1109/TSMCB.2011.2174355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Venugopal, S., Chu, X., & Buyya, R. (2008). A negotiation mechanism for advance resource reservation using the alternate offers protocol. In proc. 16th Int. Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS 2008), Twente, The Netherlands. June 2008.Google Scholar
  29. Yan, J., Kowalczyk, R., Lin, J., Chhetri, M. B., Goh, S. K., & Zhang, J. (2007). Autonomous service level agreement negotiation for service composition provision. Future Generation Computer Systems, 23(6), 748–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information and CommunicationsGwangju Institute of Science and TechnologyGwangjuRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.School of ComputingThe University of KentKentUK

Personalised recommendations