A Fuzzy-Logic Based Coordinated Scheduling Technique for Inter-grid Architectures

  • Abdulrahman Azab
  • Hein Meling
  • Reggie Davidrajuh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8460)


Inter-grid is a composition of small interconnected grid domains; each has its own local broker. The main challenge is to devise appropriate job scheduling policies that can satisfy goals such as global load balancing together with maintaining the local policies of the different domains. Existing inter-grid methodologies are based on either centralised meta-scheduling or decentralised scheduling which carried is out by local brokers, but without proper coordination. Both are suitable interconnecting grid domains, but breaks down when the number of domains become large. Earlier we proposed Slick, a scalable resource discovery and job scheduling technique for broker based interconnected grid domains, where inter-grid scheduling decisions are handled by gateway schedulers installed on the local brokers. This paper presents a decentralised scheduling technique for the Slick architecture, where cross-grid scheduling decisions are made using a fuzzy-logic based algorithm. The proposed technique is tested through simulating its implementation on 512 interconnected Condor pools. Compared to existing techniques, our results show that the proposed technique is better at maintaining the overall throughput and load balancing with increasing number of interconnected grids.


Membership Function Output Membership Function Idle Slot Grid Domain Input Membership Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Tuecke, S.: The anatomy of the grid: Enabling scalable virtual organizations. International J. Supercomputer Applications 15(3) (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yeo, C.S., Buyya, R., de Assuno, M.D., Yu, J., Sulistio, A., Venugopal, S., Placek, M.: Utility Computing on Global Grids, pp. 110–130. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ranjan, R.: Coordinated resource provisioning in federated grids. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Australia (July 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evers, X., de Jongh, J.F.C.M., Boontje, R., Epema, D.H.J., van Dantzig, R.: Condor flocking: Load sharing between pools of workstations. Department of Technical Mathematics and Informatics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, Tech. Rep. (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. for High Throughput Computing, HTCondor Version 7.9.3 Manual, University of Wisconsin-Madison (January 16, 2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Laure, E., et al.: Programming the Grid with gLite. CERN, Geneva, Tech. Rep. (March 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frey, J., Tannenbaum, T., Livny, M., Foster, I., Tuecke, S.: Condor-g: A computation management agent for multi-institutional grids. Cluster Computing 5(3), 237–246 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schuller, B., et al.: Chemomentum - unicore 6 based infrastructure for complex applications in science and technology. In: Bougé, L., Forsell, M., Träff, J.L., Streit, A., Ziegler, W., Alexander, M., Childs, S. (eds.) Euro-Par Workshops 2007. LNCS, vol. 4854, pp. 82–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buyya, R., Abramson, D., Giddy, J.: Nimrod/g: An architecture for a resource management and scheduling system in a global computational grid. In: Procee. HPC ASIA 2000, pp. 283–289 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schopf, J.: Ten actions when superscheduling. In: Global Grid Forum. (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Butt, A.R., Zhang, R., Hu, Y.C.: A self-organizing flock of condors. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 66(1), 145–161 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weissman, J.B., Grimshaw, A.S.: A federated model for scheduling in wide-area systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, HPDC 1996, p. 542. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shan, H., Oliker, L., Biswas, R.: Job superscheduler architecture and performance in computational grid environments. In: Proc. of the 2003 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (SC), pp. 44–58 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daval-Frerot, C., Lacroix, M., Guyennet, H.: Federation of resource traders in objects-oriented distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Computing in Electrical Engineering, PARELEC 2000, p. 84. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lai, K., Rasmusson, L., Adar, E., Zhang, L., Huberman, B.A.: Tycoon: An implementation of a distributed, market-based resource allocation system. Multiagent Grid Syst. 1(3), 169–182 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Azab, A., Meling, H.: Slick: A coordinated job allocation technique for inter-grid architectures. In: 7th European Modelling Symposium, EMS (November 2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vahdat, A., Becker, D.: Epidemic routing for partially connected ad hoc networks. Duke University, Tech. Rep. (July 2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Montresor, A., Jelasity, M.: PeerSim: A scalable P2P simulator. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Conference on Peer-to-Peer (P2P 2009), Seattle, WA, pp. 99–100 (September 2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Litzkow, M., Livny, M., Mutka, M.: Condor - A hunter of idle workstations. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Distributed Computing Systems (June 1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aiftimiei, C., Andreetto, P., Bertocco, S., Dalla Fina, S., Dorigo, A., Frizziero, E., Gianelle, A., Marzolla, M., Mazzucato, M., Sgaravatto, M., Traldi, S., Zangrando, L.: Design and implementation of the glite cream job management service. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 26(4), 654–667 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    NorduGrid: Nordic Testbed for Wide Area Computing and Data Handling,
  22. 22.
    Rowstron, A., Druschel, P.: Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Guerraoui, R. (ed.) Middleware 2001. LNCS, vol. 2218, pp. 329–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Liben-nowell, D., Karger, D.R., Kaashoek, M.F., Dabek, F., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 11, 17–32 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raman, R., Livny, M., Solomon, M.: Matchmaking: Distributed resource management for high throughput computing. In: Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC7), Chicago, IL (July 1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Takagi, T., Sugeno, M.: Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 15, 116–132 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bode, B., Halstead, D.M., Kendall, R., Lei, Z., Jackson, D.: The portable batch scheduler and the maui scheduler on linux clusters. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Linux Showcase & Conference, ALS 2000, vol. 4, p. 27. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Azab, A., Meling, H.: Decentralized service allocation in a broker overlay based grid. In: Jaatun, M.G., Zhao, G., Rong, C. (eds.) Cloud Computing. LNCS, vol. 5931, pp. 200–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdulrahman Azab
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hein Meling
    • 1
  • Reggie Davidrajuh
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer and Systems Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations