We consider a problem of Web service resource allocation in an economic setting. We assume that different requestors have different valuations for services and a deadline for executing a service, after which it is no longer required. We formally show an optimal offline allocation that maximizes the total welfare, denoted as the total benefit of the requestors. We then propose a bid-based approach to resource allocation and pricing for Web services. Using a detailed simulation, we analyze its behavior and performance compared to other known algorithms. We empirically show that flexibility in service price benefits both the provider in terms of profit and the requestors in terms of welfare.

Our problem motivation stems from the expanding use of Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) for outsourcing enterprize activities. While the most common method for pricing a Web service nowadays is a fixed-price policy (with a price of 0 in many cases), A Service-Oriented Architecture will increasingly generate competition among providers, underlying the importance of finding methodologies for pricing Web service execution.


Arrival Rate Competitive Ratio Online Algorithm Online Schedule Economic Setting 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hung, P.C., Li, H.: Web services discovery based on the trade-off between quality and cost of service: A tokenbased approach. ACM SIGecom Exchanges 4 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin, Z., Zhao, H., Ramanathan, S.: Pricing web services for optimizing resource allocation an implementation scheme. In: Web 2003, Seattle, WA (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartal, Y., Chin, F.Y.L., Chrobak, M., Fung, S.P.Y., Jawor, W., Lavi, R., Sgall, J., Tichý, T.: Online competitive algorithms for maximizing weighted throughput of unit jobs. In: Diekert, V., Habib, M. (eds.) STACS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2996, pp. 187–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, D., Lin, Z., Stahl, D.O., Whinston, A.B.: Bridging agent-based simulations and direct experiments - an experimental system for internet traffic pricing. In: AMCIS 2001, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta, A., Stahl, D.O., Whinston, A.B.: A stochastic equilibrium model of internet pricing. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 697–722 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin, Z., Ow, P., Stahl, D.O., Whinston, A.B.: Exp loring traffic pricing for the virtual private network. In: WITS (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stratmann, T.: Logrolling, perspectives on public choice: A handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mani, A., Nagarajan, A.: Understanding quality of service for web services: Improving the performance of your web services (2002),
  9. 9.
    Fowler, A.: Effective negotiation. Institute of Personnel Management (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chrobak, M., Jawor, W., Sgall, J., Tichý, T.: Improved Online Algorithms for Buffer Management in QoS Switches. In: Albers, S., Radzik, T. (eds.) ESA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3221, pp. 204–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hajek, B.: On the competitiveness of online scheduling of unit-length packets with hard deadlines in slotted time. In: Conference in Information Sciences and Systems, pp. 434–438 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, F., Sethuraman, J., Stein, C.: An optimal online algorithm for packet scheduling with agreeable deadlines. In: 16th ACM-SIAM SODA, pp. 460–469 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sgall, J.: Online algorithms for scheduling unit jobs. In: 7th MAPSP (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graham, R.: Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies. Bell Sys. Tech. Journal 45, 1563–1581 (1966)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kessekman, A., Lother, Z., Mansour, Y., Patt-Shamir, B., Schieber, B., Sviridenko, M.: Buffer overflow management in qos switches. SIAM J. Comput. 33, 563–583 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buyya, R., Abramson, D., Giddy, J., Stockinger, H.: Economic models for resources management and scheduling in grid computation. The Journal on Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 14, 1507–1542 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Porter, R.: Mechanism design for online real-time scheduling. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Cemmerce (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lawler, E., Lenstra, J., Kan, A.R., Shmoys, D.: Sequencing and scheduling: Algorithms and complexity, Logistics of Production and Inventory. In: Graves, S.C., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G., Zipkin, P.H. (eds.) Logistics of Production and Inventory, vol. 4 (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edmonds, J.: Paths, trees, flowers. Canadian Journal of Mathematisc, 449–467 (1965)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Güntzer, U., Balke, W.T., Kießling, W.: Optimizing multi-feature queries in image databases. In: Twenty Sixth Very Large Databases (VLDB) Conference, pp. 419–428 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yahav, I.: Bid-based online scheduling of unit-length tasks with hard deadlines. Master’s thesis, Thechnion - Israel Institute of Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu, C., Wayland, J.W.: Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard real time environment. Journal of ACM, 46–61 (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inbal Yahav
    • 1
  • Avigdor Gal
    • 1
  • Nathan Larson
    • 2
  1. 1.Israel Institute of TechnologyTechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations