Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 103, Issue 3, pp 2035–2070 | Cite as

Time-Cost Efficient Scheduling Algorithms for Executing Workflow in Infrastructure as a Service Clouds

  • Robabeh Ghafouri
  • Ali MovagharEmail author
  • Mehran Mohsenzadeh


Cloud Computing enables delivery of IT resources over the Internet and follows the pay-as-you-go billing model. The cloud infrastructures can be used as an appropriate environment for executing of workflow applications. To execute workflow applications in this environment, it is necessary to develop the workflow scheduling algorithms that consider different QoS parameters such as execution time and cost. Therefore, in this paper we focus on two criteria: total completion time (makespan) and execution cost of workflow, and propose two heuristic algorithms: MTDC (Minimum Time and Decreased Cost) which aims to create a schedule that minimizes the makespan and decreases execution cost, and CTDC (Constrained Time and Decreased Cost) which is based on the first algorithm (MTDC) and aims to create a schedule that decreases the execution cost while satisfying the deadline constraint of the workflow application. The proposed algorithms are evaluated by a simulation process using WorkflowSim. To evaluate the proposed algorithms, the results of MTDC are compared with the results of HEFT (Heterogeneous Earliest Finish Time), and the results of CTDC are compared with the results of heuristic based algorithms [such as IC-PCP (IaaS Cloud Partial Critical Paths), IC-PCPD2 (Deadline Distribution) and BDHEFT (Budget and Deadline HEFT)] and meta-heuristic based algorithms [such as PSO (Particle Swarm Optimization) and CGA2 (Coevolutionary Genetic Algorithm with Adaptive penalty function)]. The results show that the proposed algorithms perform better than the mentioned algorithms in most cases.


Workflow Scheduling IaaS cloud Deadline Cost 



  1. 1.
    Juve, G., Deelman, E., Vahi, K., Mehta, G., Berriman, B., Berman, B. P., & Maechling, P. (2010). Scientific workflow applications on Amazon EC2. In 5th IEEE international conference on e-Science.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Juve, G., Chervenak, A., Deelman, E., Bharathi, S., Mehta, G., & Vahi, K. (2012). Characterizing and profiling scientific workflows. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(3), 682–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mao, M., & Humphrey, M. (2011). Auto-scaling to minimize cost and meet application deadlines in cloud workflows. In Proceedings of 2011 international conference for high performance computing, networking, storage and analysis, Seattle, Washington (pp. 1–49).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu, F, Wu, Q., & Tan, Y. (2015). Workflow scheduling in cloud: A survey. The Journal of Supercomputing, 71(9), 3373–3418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing. Gaithersburg: Computer Security Division, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffa, C., Mehta, G., Freeman, T., Deelman, E., et al. (2008). On the use of cloud computing for scientific workflows. In Proceedings of the 2008 Fourth IEEE international conference on eScience (pp. 640–645).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juve, G., & Deelman, E. (2011). Scientific workflows in the cloud. In M. Cafaro & G. Aloisio (Eds.), Grids, clouds and virtualization (pp. 71–91). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abrishami, S., Naghibzadeh, M., & Epema, D. (2013). Deadline-constrained workflow scheduling algorithms for infrastructure as a service clouds. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(1), 158–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garey, M., Johnson, D., & Computers and Intractability. (1990). A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arabnejad, H., Barbosa, J., & Prodan, R. (2016). Low-time complexity budget-deadline constrained workflow scheduling on heterogeneous resources. Future Generation Computer Systems, 55(c), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Topcuouglu, H., Hariri, S., & Wu, M. (2002). Performance-effective and low-complexity task scheduling for heterogeneous computing. IEEE Transaction Parallel Distributed Systems, 13(3), 260–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kwok, Y. K., & Ahmad, I. (1996). Dynamic critical-path scheduling: An effective technique for allocating task graphs to multiprocessors. IEEE Transaction Parallel Distributed Systems, 7(5), 506–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hagras, T., & Janecek, J. (2003). A Simple scheduling heuristic for heterogeneous computing environments. In Proceedings of the second international conference on parallel and distributed computing (pp. 104–110).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ilavarasan, E., Thambidurai, P., & Mahilmannan, R. (2005). High performance task scheduling algorithm for heterogeneous computing system. In International conference on algorithms and architectures for parallel processing (pp. 193-203).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ilavarasan, E., & Thambidurai, P. (2007). Low complexity performance effective task scheduling algorithm for heterogeneous computing environments. Journal of Computer Sciences, 3(2), 94–103.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bittencourt, L., Sakellariou, R., & Madeira, E. (2010). DAG scheduling using a look ahead variant of the heterogeneous earliest finish time algorithm. In 18th Euromicro conference on parallel, distributed and network-based processing (pp. 27–34).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arabnejad, H., & Barbosa, J. G. (2014). List scheduling algorithm for heterogeneous systems by an optimistic cost table. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 25(3), 682–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canon, L., Jeannot, E., Sakellariou, R., & Zheng, W. (2008). Comparative evaluation of the robustness of DAG scheduling heuristics. In Grid computing achievements and prospects (pp. 73–84). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Calheiros, R., & Buyya, R. (2014). Meeting deadlines of scientific workflows in public clouds with tasks replication. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 25(7), 1787–1796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sahni, J., & Vidyarthi, D. (2015). A cost-effective deadline-constrained dynamic scheduling algorithm for scientific workflows in a cloud environment. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 1(1), 99.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chopra, N., & Singh, S. (2013). HEFT based workflow scheduling algorithm for cost optimization within deadline in hybrid clouds. In Proceeding of fourth international conference on computing (pp. 1–6). Bengaluru, India: Communications and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yu, J., Ramamohanarao, K., & Buyya, R. (2009). Deadline/budget-based scheduling of workflows on utility grids. Market-Oriented Grid and Utility Computing, 200(9), 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yuan, Y., Li, X., Wang, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Bottom level based heuristic for workflow scheduling in grids. Chinese Journal of Computers, 31(2), 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yuan, Y., Li, X., Wang, Q., & Zhu, X. (2009). Deadline division-based heuristic for cost optimization in workflow scheduling. Information Sciences, 179(15), 2562–2575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen, W., Xie, G., Li, R., Bai, R., Fan, C., & Li, K. (2017). Efficient task scheduling for budget constrained parallel applications on heterogeneous cloud. Future Generation Computer Systems, 74(C), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu, C. Q., Lin, X., Yu, D., Xu, W., & Li, L. (2015). End-to-end delay minimization for scientific workflows in clouds under budget constraint. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 3(2), 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin, X., & Wu, C. (2013). On scientific workflow scheduling in clouds under budget constraint. In 42nd IEEE International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP) (pp. 90–99).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu, J., Ramamohanarao, K., & Buyya, R. (2009). Deadline/budget-based scheduling of workflows on utility grids. Market-oriented grid and utility computing. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arabnejad, H., & Barbosa, J. (2014). A budget constrained scheduling algorithm for workflow applications. The Journal of Grid Computing, 12(4), 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sakellariou, R., & Zhao, H., et al. (2007). Scheduling workflows with budget constraints Integrated Research in GRID Computing. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-47658-2.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zeng, L., & Veeravalli, B., Li, X. (2012). Budget conscious scheduling precedence-constrained many-task workflow applications in cloud. In Proceedings of IEEE 26th international conference on advanced information networking and applications, Fukuoka, Japan.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Poola, D., Garg, S. K., Buyya, R., Yang, Y., & Ramamohanarao, K. (2014). Robust scheduling of scientific workflows with deadline and budget constraints in clouds. In 2014 IEEE 28th international conference on advanced information networking and applications (pp. 858-865).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zheng, W., & Sakellariou, R. (2013). Budget-deadline constrained workflow planning for admission control. The Journal of Grid Computing, 11(4), 633–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Verma, A., & Kaushal, S. (2015). Cost-time efficient scheduling plan for executing workflows in the cloud. The Journal of Grid Computing, 13(4), 495–506.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Malawski, M., Juve, G., Deelman, E., & Nabrzyski, J. (2015). Algorithms for cost-and deadline-constrained provisioning for scientific workflow ensembles in IaaS clouds. Future Generation Computer Systems, 48(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yu, J., & Rajkumar, B. (2006). Scheduling scientific workflow applications with deadline and budget constraints using genetic algorithms. Scientific Programming, 14(3), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pandey, S., Wu, L., Guru, S. M., & Buyya, R. (2010). A particle swarm optimization based heuristic for scheduling workflow applications in cloud computing environments. In 24th IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications (AINA) (pp. 400-407).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu, L., Zhang, M., Buyya, R., & Fan, Q. (2017). Deadline-constrained coevolutionary genetic algorithm for scientific workflow scheduling in cloud computing. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 29(5), e3942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bryk, P., Malawski, M., Juve, G., & Deelman, E. (2016). Storage-aware algorithms for scheduling of workflow ensembles in clouds. Journal of Grid Computing, 14(2), 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang, S., Chen, X., & Huo, X. (2010). Cloud computing research and development trend. In Second international conference on future networks, 2010, ICFN’10 (pp. 93–97).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chen, W., & Deelman, E. (2012). WorkflowSim: A toolkit for simulating scientific workflows in distributed environments. In 2012 IEEE 8th international conference on E-Science (e-Science) (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Calheiros, R., Ranjan, R., Beloglazov, A., De, R., & Buyya, R. (2011). CloudSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Software: Practice and Experience, 14(1), 23–50.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bharathi, S., Chervenak, A., Deelman, E., Mehta, G., Su, M. H., & Vahi, K. (2008). Characterization of scientific workflows. In 2008 third workshop on workflows in support of large-scale science (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations