Task Based System Load Balancing Approach in Cloud Environments

  • Fahimeh RamezaniEmail author
  • Jie Lu
  • Farookh Hussain
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 214)


Live virtual machine (VM) migration is a technique for transferring an active VM from one physical host to another without disrupting the VM. This technique has been proposed to reduce the downtime for migrated overload VMs. As VMs migration takes much more times and cost in comparison with tasks migration, this study develops a novel approach to confront with the problem of overload VM and achieving system load balancing, by assigning the arrival task to another similar VM in a cloud environment. In addition, we propose a multi-objective optimization model to migrate these tasks to a new VM host applying multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA). In the proposed approach, there is no need to pause VM during migration time. In addition, as contrast to tasks migration, VM live migration takes longer to complete and needs more idle capacity in host physical machine (PM), the proposed approach will significantly reduce time, downtime memory, and cost consumption.


Cloud computing Multi-objective genetic algorithm Virtual machine migration Task based system load balancing algorithm 


  1. 1.
    Buyya R, Broberg J, Goscinski A (eds) (2011) Cloud computing: principles and paradigmsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Celesti A, Fazio M, Villari M, Puliafito A (2012) (VM) provisioning through satellite communications in federated cloud environments. Future Gener Comput Syst 28(1):85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rochwerger B, Breitgand D, Epstein A, Hadas D, Loy I, Nagin K, Tordsson J, Ragusa C, Villari M, Clayman S (2011) Reservoir-when one cloud is not enough. Comput 44(3):44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goiri I, Guitart J, Torres J (2010) Characterizing cloud federation for enhancing providers’ profit. In: IEEE 3rd international conference on cloud computing (CLOUD), pp 123–130Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ranjan R, Buyya R (2008): Decentralized overlay for federation of enterprise clouds, Arxiv preprint arXiv:0811.2563Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark C, Fraser K, Hand S, Jacob GH (2005) Live migration of (VM)s. In: Proceedings of 2nd ACM/USENIX symposium on network systems, design and implementation (NSDI)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jun C, xiaowei C(2011): IPv6 (VM) live migration framework for cloud computing, Energy procedia, vol 13(0):5753–5757Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jin H, Gao W, Wu S, Shi X, Wu X, Zhou F (2011) Optimizing the live migration of (VM) by CPU scheduling’. J of Netw and Comput Appl 34(4):1088–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liao X, Jin H, Liu H (2012) Towards a green cluster through dynamic remapping of (VM)s. Future Gener Comput Syst 28(2):469–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jain N, Menache I, Naor J,.Shepherd F(2012) Topology-aware VM migration in bandwidth oversubscribed datacenter networks, automata, languages, and programming, pp 586–597Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kozuch M, Satyanarayanan M (2002) Internet suspend/resume, Mobile computing systems and applications. Proceedings fourth IEEE workshop on, pp 40–46Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sapuntzakis CP, Chandra R, Pfaff B, Chow J, Lam MS, Rosenblum M (2002) Optimizing the migration of virtual computers. ACM SIGOPS operating systems review, vol 36, no. SI, pp 377–390Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whitaker A, Cox RS, Shaw M, Gribble SD(2004) Constructing services with interposable virtual hardware. In: Proceedings of the 1st symposium on networked systems design and implementation (NSDI), pp 169–182Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osman S, Subhraveti D, Su G, Nieh J (2002): The design and implementation of Zap: A system for migrating computing environments, ACM SIGOPS Operating systems review, vol 36, no. SI, pp 361–376 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nelson M, Lim BH, Hutchins G (2005) Fast transparent migration for (VM)s, pp 25–25 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Travostino F, Daspit P, Gommans L, Jog C, De Laat C, Mambretti J, Monga I, Van Oudenaarde B, Raghunath S, Yonghui Wang P (2006) Seamless live migration of (VM)s over the MAN/WAN. Future Gener Comput Syst 22(8):901–907Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin W, Wang JZ, Liang C, Qi D (2011) A threshold-based dynamic resource allocation scheme for cloud computing. Proced Eng 23:695–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guo L, Zhao S, Shen S, Jiang C (2012) Task scheduling optimization in cloud computing based on heuristic algorithm. J Netw 7(3):547–553Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corne DW, Jerram NR, Knowles JD, Oates MJ (2001) PESA-II: Region-based selection in evolutionary multiobjective optimization, CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knowles JD, Corne DW (2000) Approximating the nondominated front using the Pareto archived evolution strategy. Evolut compu 8(2):149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L(2001) SPEA2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithmGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang Y, Lu C, Zhang H, Han J(2011) Active vibration isolation system integrated optimization based on multi-objective genetic algorithm, computing, control and industrial engineering (CCIE), IEEE 2nd international conference on, vol 1, pp. 258–261Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3):221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2),
  25. 25.
    Azure: Microsoft’s service Cloud platform,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Systems and e-Service Intelligence Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering and IT, School of Software, Centre for QCISUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations