Cost-Efficient CPU Provisioning for Scientific Workflows on Clouds

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9512)

Abstract

Cloud providers now offer resources as combinations of CPU frequencies and prices, with faster resources (which operate at higher frequencies) charged at a higher monetary cost. With the emergence of this new pricing scheme, the problem of choosing cost-efficient configurations is becoming even more challenging for users. The frequencies required to achieve cost-efficient configurations may vary in different scenarios, depending on both the provider’s pricing model and the application characteristics. In this paper, two cost-aware algorithms that select low-cost CPU frequencies for each resource to complete a scientific workflow application within a deadline and at a minimum cost are presented. The proposed approaches are evaluated and compared through simulation using different pricing models that charge resource provisioning also based on the CPU frequency.

Keywords

Cost Workflows Cloud computing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Taylor, I.J., Deelman, E., Gannon, D., Shields, M.: Workflows for e-Science. Springer, London (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pietri, I., Sakellariou, R.: Cost-efficient provisioning of cloud resources priced by CPU frequency. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing, pp. 483–484. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrishami, S., Naghibzadeh, M., Epema, D.: Cost-driven scheduling of grid workflows using partial critical paths. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 23(8), 1400–1414 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fard, H.M., Prodan, R., Barrionuevo, J.J.D., Fahringer, T.: A multi-objective approach for workflow scheduling in heterogeneous environments. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, pp. 300–309. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prodan, R., Wieczorek, M.: Bi-criteria scheduling of scientific grid workflows. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 7(2), 364–376 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sakellariou, R., Zhao, H., Tsiakkouri, E., Dikaiakos, M.D.: Scheduling workflows with budget constraints. In: Gorlatch, S., Danelutto, M. (eds.) Integrated Research in GRID Computing, pp. 189–202. Springer, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Byun, E.K., Kee, Y.S., Kim, J.S., Maeng, S.: Cost optimized provisioning of elastic resources for application workflows. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 27(8), 1011–1026 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huu, T.T., Montagnat, J.: Virtual resources allocation for workflow-based applications distribution on a cloud infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, pp. 612–617. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malawski, M., Juve, G., Deelman, E., Nabrzyski, J.: Cost- and deadline-constrained provisioning for scientific workflow ensembles in IaaS clouds. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Supercomputing, pp. 10–16. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, J., Su, S., Cheng, X., Huang, Q., Zhang, Z.: Cost-conscious scheduling for large graph processing in the cloud. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, pp. 808–813. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Su, S., Li, J., Huang, Q., Huang, X., Shuang, K., Wang, J.: Cost-efficient task scheduling for executing large programs in the cloud. Parallel Comput. 39, 177–188 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Topcuoglu, H., Hariri, S., Wu, M.Y.: Performance-effective and low-complexity task scheduling for heterogeneous computing. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 13(3), 260–274 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Byun, E.K., Kee, Y.S., Kim, J.S., Deelman, E., Maeng, S.: BTS: resource capacity estimate for time-targeted science workflows. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 71(6), 848–862 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mao, M., Li, J., Humphrey, M.: Cloud auto-scaling with deadline and budget constraints. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing, pp. 41–48. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verma, A., Kaushal, S.: Bi-criteria priority based particle swarm optimization workflow scheduling algorithm for cloud. In: Recent Advances in Engineering and Computational Sciences (RAECS), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hsu, C.H., Kremer, U.: The design, implementation, and evaluation of a compiler algorithm for CPU energy reduction. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 38(5), 38–48 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Etinski, M., Corbalan, J., Labarta, J., Valero, M.: Optimizing job performance under a given power constraint in HPC centers. In: Proceedings of the IGCC, pp. 257–267. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shi, W., Hong, B.: Towards profitable virtual machine placement in the data center. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing, pp. 138–145. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sharma, U., Shenoy, P., Sahu, S., Shaikh, A.: A cost-aware elasticity provisioning system for the cloud. In: 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pp. 559–570, IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    LIGO project, L.i.g.w.o. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
  23. 23.
    Sakellariou, R., Zhao, H.: A hybrid heuristic for dag scheduling on heterogeneous systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, p. 111. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Canon, L.C., Jeannot, E., Sakellariou, R., Zheng, W.: Comparative evaluation of the robustness of dag scheduling heuristics. In: Gorlatch, S., Fragopoulou, P., Priol, T. (eds.) Grid Computing, pp. 73–84. Springer, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Livny, J., Teonadi, H., Livny, M., Waldor, M.K.: High-throughput, kingdom-wide prediction and annotation of bacterial non-coding RNAs. PloS One 3(9), e3197 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Katz, D.S., Jacob, J.C., Deelman, E., Kesselman, C., Singh, G., Su, M.H., Berriman, G., Good, J., Laity, A., Prince, T.A.: A comparison of two methods for building astronomical image mosaicson a grid. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops (ICPPW), pp. 85–94. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Juve, G., Chervenak, A., Deelman, E., Bharathi, S., Mehta, G., Vahi, K.: Characterizing and profiling scientific workflows. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 29(3), 682–692 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations