Cloud service ranking as a multi objective optimization problem

An Erratum to this article is available

Abstract

Cloud computing is a kind of computing model on subscription basis. In cloud computing environment, there are a lot of cloud providers that present variety kind of services with different quality of services. Users have various kinds of applications that should be carried out on suitable cloud services. Consequently the users might encounter problems in choosing the best service. Hence selection of a method to compare services and to choose best service has been regarded as a challenge. In this paper we presented NSGA_SR approach that utilizes both objective and subjective assessments and models ranking problem as a multi objective optimization and then solves it with use of non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. Numerical experiments, confirmed that the proposed approach outperforms available approaches in terms of flexibility and scalability with increasing number of users and services. Also it converges to optimization of goals and has good stability during the different generations. Also it includes no limitation regarding any additive new quality attribute, service or supplementary function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

References

  1. 1.

    Buyya R, Yeo CS, 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 Gener Comput Syst 25(6):599–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ding S, Yang S, Zhang Y, Liang C, Xia C (2014) Combining QoS prediction and customer satisfaction estimation to solve cloud service trustworthiness evaluation problems. Knowled Based Syst 56:216–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Buyya R, Vecchiola C, Selvi C (2013) Cloud computing architecture 4:111–140

  4. 4.

    Chen CT, Lin KH (2010) A decision making method based on interval valued fuzzy sets for cloud service evaluation. In: 4th international conference on new trends in information science and service science (NISS), Gyeongju

  5. 5.

    Hao Y, Zhang Y, Cao J (2010) Web services discovery and rank: an information retrieval approach. Future Gener Comput Syst 26(8):1053–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Stojanovic MD, Bostjancic Rakas SV, Acimovic Raspopovic VS (2010) End-to-end quality of service specification and mapping: the third party approach. Comput Commun 33(11):1354–1368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chen L, Feng Y, Jian W, Zheng Z (2011) An enhanced QoS prediction approach for service selection. In: IEEE international conference on services computing, Washington, DC

  8. 8.

    Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R (2013) A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(4):1012–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Itani W, Ghali C, Kayssi AI, Chehab A (2011) Accountable reputation ranking schemes for service providers in cloud computing. In: International conference on cloud computing and services science, Frank Leymann

  10. 10.

    Katsaros G, Subirats J, Fito JO, Guitart J, Gilet P, Espling D (2013) A service framework for energy aware monitoring and VM management in clouds. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(8):2077–2091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chan J, Chieu T (2010) Ranking and mapping of applications to cloud computing services by SVD. In: IEEE/IFIP network operations and management symposium workshops (NOMS Wksps), Osaka

  12. 12.

    Katchabaw MJ, Lutfiyya HL, Bauer MA (2005) Usage based service differentiation for end-to-end quality of service management. Comput Commun 28(18):2146–2159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Zhang R, Zettsu K, Kidawara Y, Kiyoki Y (2012) Web service ranking based on context. In: Second international conference on cloud and green computing, Xiangtan

  14. 14.

    Segev A, Toch E (2009) Context based matching and ranking of web services for composition. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 2(3):210–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Qu L, Wang Y, Orgun MA (2013) Cloud service selection based on the aggregation of user feedback and quantitative performance assessment. In: IEEE 10th international conference on services computing, Santa Clara

  16. 16.

    Alarcon-Rodriguez (2009) A multi objective planning framework for analysing the integration of distributed energy resources. In: A thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Institute of Energy and Environment, Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University of Strathclyde

  17. 17.

    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Almasri E, Mahmoud QH (2008) Investigating web services on the world wide web, refereed track: web engineering—web service deployment, New York

  19. 19.

    Sobel W, Subramanyam Sh, Sucharitakul A, Nguyen J, Wong H, Klepchukov A, Patil Sh, Fox O, Patterson D (2008) Cloudstone: multi platform, multi-language benchmark and measurement tools for web 2.0. In: Proceedings of cloud computing and its applications, CCA-08. http://www.cca08.orgpapers.php

  20. 20.

    Miller P (2009) The importance of benchmarking clouds. CloudHarmony. http://www.cloudharmony.com

  21. 21.

    Li A, Yang X, Kandula S, Zhang M (2010) CloudCmp: comparing public cloud providers. In: IMC ’10 proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement, New York

  22. 22.

    Li A, Yang X, Kandula S, Zhang M (2011) CloudCmp: shopping for a cloudmade easy. HotCloud’10 proceedings of the 2nd USENIX conference on Hot topics in cloud computing, USENIX Association Berkeley, CA

  23. 23.

    Abubakr T (2011) Tools for benchmarking the cloud: Cloud Sleuth. https://www.cloudsleuth.net

  24. 24.

    Luo C, Zhan J, Jia Z, Wang L, Lu G, Zhang L, Xu C, Sun N (2012) CloudRank-D: benchmarking and ranking cloud computing systems for data processing applications. Front Comput Sci 6(4):347–362

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Skoutas D, Sacharidis D, Simitsis A, Sellis T (2010) Ranking and clustering web services using multicriteria dominance relationships. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 3(3):163–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rehman U, Hussain OK, Parvin S, Hussain FK (2012) A framework for user feedback based cloud service monitoring. sixth international conference on complex, intelligent and software intensive systems, Palermo

  27. 27.

    Choudhury P, Sharma M, Vikas K, Pranshu T, Satyanarayana V (2012) Service ranking systems for cloud vendors. Adv Mater Res 433:3949–3953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lejeune J, Arantes L, Sopena J, Sens P (2012) Service level agreement for distributed mutual exclusion in cloud computing. In: 12th IEEE/ACM international symposium on cluster, cloud and grid computing, Ottawa

  29. 29.

    Wright State University (2010) Cirrocumulus: a semantic framework for application and core services portability across heterogeneous clouds, project at Kno–e–sis Center at Wright State University. http://knoesis.org/node/70

  30. 30.

    Zheng Z, Wu X, Zhang Y, Lyu MR, Wang J (2013) QoS ranking prediction for cloud services. IEEE Trans Parall Distrib Syst 24(6):1213–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Zheng Z, Wu X, Zhang Y, Lyu MR (2010) CloudRank: a QoS-driven component ranking framework for cloud computing. In: 29th IEEE international symposium on reliable distributed systems

  32. 32.

    Dikaiakos MD, Zeinalipour Yazti D (2004) A distributed middleware infrastructure for personalized services. Comput Commun 27(15):1464–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    CSMIC (2011) Service measurement index version 1.0. Carnegie Mellon University Silicon Valley, Moffett Field

  34. 34.

    Jahani A, Mohammadkhanli L, Razavi SN (2014) \({\rm W}\_{\rm SR}\) A QoS based ranking approach for cloud computing. Comput Eng Syst 3(2):55–62

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Durao F, Carvalho J, Fonseka A, Garcia V (2014) A systematic review on cloud computing. J Supercomput 68(3):1321–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Sun L (2016) Cloud-FuSeR: fuzzy ontology and MCDM based cloud service selection. Future Gener Comput Syst 57:42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Almulla M, Yahyaoui H, Al-Matori K (2015) A new fuzzy hybrid technique for ranking real world web services. Knowl Based Syst 77:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Singh S, Chana I (2014) QRSF: QoS-aware resource scheduling framework in cloud computing. J Supercomput 71(1):241–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chen JH (2015) A hybrid model for cloud providers and consumers to agree on QoS of cloud services. Future Gener Comput Syst 50:38–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    CSMIC (2011) CSMIC SMI overview diagram TwoPointOne. Carnegie Mellon University Silicon Valley, Moffett Field

  41. 41.

    Raisanen V (2004) Service quality support-an overview. Comput Commun 27(15):1539–1546

  42. 42.

    Yau SS, Yin Y (2011) QoS-based service ranking and selection for service based systems. In: IEEE international conference on services computing, Washington, DC

  43. 43.

    Ishizaka A, Labib A (2009) Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: benefits and limitations. OR Insight 22(4):201–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arezoo Jahani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jahani, A., Khanli, L.M. Cloud service ranking as a multi objective optimization problem. J Supercomput 72, 1897–1926 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-016-1690-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cloud computing
  • Quality of service (QoS)
  • Service ranking
  • Multi objective optimization (MOO)
  • Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II)