CANPRO: A Conflict-Aware Protocol for Negotiation of Cloud Resources and Services
In a Cloud environment, users face the challenge of selecting and composing resources and services from a single or multiple providers. As several negotiations can occur concurrently, information on service and resource availability may be out-of-date, thus requiring several iterations between users and providers until an agreement is achieved. To address this problem, we introduce CANPRO, a Conflict-Aware Negotiation Protocol for allocating Cloud resource and services aimed at reducing cancellation messages during negotiation. CANPRO allows users (or entities on their behalf) to know the amount of resources being concurrently negotiated by other users and the number of users interested in such an amount, while still keeping users’ information private. By knowing this information, users can, for instance, confirm allocation requests with lower chances of having collisions with other users. In addition, for the same reason, users can increase their time deciding which (combination of) resources they want to allocate. The paper presents comparative results of CANPRO against the popular two-phase commit protocol (2PC) and a state-of-the-art protocol named SNAP-3PC. We used think time, network overhead, number of concurrent negotiations and providers as main metrics. The results are promising and the protocol can be used in scenarios other than Cloud Computing; for instance, bookings of health services, cars, tickets for venues, schedule of appointments, among others.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Azougagh, D., Yu, J.L., Kim, J.S., Maeng, S.R.: Resource co-allocation: A complementary technique that enhances performance in grid computing environment. In: Proceedings of ICPADS (2005)Google Scholar
- 2.Bernstein, P.A., Goodman, N.: Concurrency control in distributed database systems. ACM Computing Surveys 13(2), 185–221 (1981)Google Scholar
- 3.Czajkowski, K., Foster, I.T., Kesselman, C., Sander, V., Tuecke, S.: SNAP: A protocol for negotiating service level agreements and coordinating resource management in distributed systems. In: Proceedings of JSSPP (2002)Google Scholar
- 4.Gray, J., Lamport, L.: Consensus on transaction commit. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 31(1), 133–160 (2006)Google Scholar
- 5.Haji, M.H., Gourlay, I., Djemame, K., Dew, P.M.: A SNAP-based community resource broker using a three-phase commit protocol: A performance study. The Computer Journal 48(3), 333–346 (2005)Google Scholar
- 6.Jardine, J., Snell, Q., Clement, M.J.: Livelock avoidance for meta-schedulers. In: Proceedings of HPDC (2001)Google Scholar
- 7.Kuo, D., Mckeown, M.: Advance reservation and co-allocation protocol for grid computing. In: Proceedings of e-Science 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
- 8.Maclaren, J., Keown, M.M., Pickles, S.: Co-allocation, fault tolerance and grid computing. In: Proceedings of the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting (2006)Google Scholar
- 9.Netto, M.A.S., Buyya, R.: Offer-based scheduling of deadline-constrained bag-of-tasks applications for utility computing systems. In: Proceedings of HCW/IPDPS (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.Netto, M.A.S., Buyya, R.: Resource co-allocation in grid computing environments. In: Handbook of Research on P2P and Grid Systems for Service-Oriented Computing: Models, Methodologies and Applications, IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
- 11.Park, J.: A deadlock and livelock free protocol for decentralized internet resource coallocation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A 34(1), 123–131 (2004)Google Scholar
- 12.Takefusa, A., Nakada, H., Kudoh, T., Tanaka, Y., Sekiguchi, S.: GridARS: an advance reservation-based grid co-allocation framework for distributed computing and network resources. In: Proceedings of JSSPP (2007)Google Scholar