Abstract

In this paper, we present a constraint programming approach for the service consolidation problem that is being currently tackled by Neptuny, Milan. The problem is defined as: Given a data-center, a set of servers with a priori fixed costs, a set of services or applications with hourly resource utilizations, find an allocation of applications to servers while minimizing the data-center costs and satisfying constraints on the resource utilizations for each hour of the day profile and on rule-based constraints defined between services and servers and amongst different services. The service consolidation problem can be modelled as an Integer Linear Programming problem with 0–1 variables, however it is extremely difficult to handle large sized instances and the rule-based constraints. So a constraint programming approach using the Comet programming language is developed to assess the impact of the rule-based constraints in reducing the problem search space and to improve the solution quality and scalability. Computational results for realistic consolidation scenarios are presented, showing that the proposed approach is indeed promising.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Almeida, J., Almeida, V., Ardagna, D., Francalanci, C., Trubian, M.: Resource management in the autonomic service-oriented architecture. In: Proc. of International Conference on Autonomic Computing, pp. 84–92 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anselmi, J., Amaldi, E., Cremonesi, P.: Service consolidation with end-to-end response time constraints. In: Proc. of Euromicro Conference Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 345–352. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bichler, M., Setzer, T., Speitkamp, B.: Capacity planning for virtualized servers. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DYNADEC. Comet release 2.0 (2009), http://www.dynadec.com
  5. 5.
    Junker, U.: Quickxplain: Conflict detection for arbitrary constraint propagation algorithms. In: Proc. of Workshop on Modelling and Solving Problems with Constraints, Seattle, WA, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lawler, E.: Recent results in the theory of machine scheduling. In: Bachem, A., Grotschel, M., Korte, B. (eds.) Mathematical Programming: The State of the Art. Springer, Heidelberg (1983)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Michel, L., Shvartsman, A., Sonderegger, E., Van Hentenryck, P.: Optimal Deployment of Eventually-Serializable Data Services. In: Perron, L., Trick, M.A. (eds.) CPAIOR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5015, pp. 188–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rolia, J., Andrzejak, A., Arlitt, M.F.: Automating enterprise application placement in resource utilities. In: Brunner, M., Keller, A. (eds.) DSOM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2867, pp. 118–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kanika Dhyani
    • 1
  • Stefano Gualandi
    • 2
  • Paolo Cremonesi
    • 2
  1. 1.Neptuny s.r.l.MilanItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di Milano 

Personalised recommendations