Multi Objective Optimization Strategy Suitable for Virtual Cells as a Service

  • Ibrahim Kabiru Musa
  • Walker Stuart
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 237)


Performance guarantee and management complexity are critical issues in delivering next generation infrastructure as a service (IAAS) cloud computing model. This is normally attributed to the current size of datacenters that are built to enable the cloud services. A promising approach to handle these issues is to offer IAAS from a subset of the datacenter as a, biologically inspired, virtual service cell. However, this approach requires effective strategies to ensure efficient use of datacenter resources while maintaining high performance and functionality for the service cells. We present a multi-objective and multi-constraint optimization (MOMCO) strategy based on genetic algorithm to the problem of resource placement and utilization suitable for virtual service cell model. We apply a combination of NSGA-II with various crossover strategies and population sizes to test our optimization strategy. Results obtained from our simulation experiment shows significant improvement on acceptance rate over non optimized solutions.


Cloud computing IAAS biologically-inspired NGSA-II 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wenwu, Z., Chong, L., Jianfeng, W., Shipeng, L.: Multimedia Cloud Computing. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 28, 59–69 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C.S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., Brandic, I.: Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Computer Systems-the International Journal of Grid Computing-Theory Methods and Applications 25, 599–616 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Michael, A., Armando, F., Rean, G., Joseph, A.D., Katz, R.H., Andrew, K., et al.: Above the Clouds: A Berkeley View of Cloud Computing. Commun. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Theophilus, B., Aditya, A., Maltz, D.A.: Network traffic characteristics of data centers in the wild. Presented at the Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, Melbourne, Australia (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hines, M.R., Deshpande, U., Gopalan, K.: Post-copy live migration of virtual machines. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 43, 14–26 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zorov, D.B., Kobrinsky, E., Juhaszova, M., Sollott, S.J.: Examining Intracellular Organelle Function Using Fluorescent Probes: From Animalcules to Quantum Dots. Circulation Research 95, 239–252 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Banerjee, P., Friedrich, R., Bash, C., Goldsack, P., Huberman, B.A., Manley, J., et al.: Everything as a Service: Powering the New Information Economy. Computer 44, 36–43 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Musa, I.K., Stuart, W.: A Converged Service Plane for Virtual Infrastructure Containers. IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science 10, 12 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas, F.J.M.: The Biogenesis of Cellular Organelles. Plenum Publishers (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    James Frey, T.T., Foster, I., Livny, M., Tuecke, S.: Condor-G: A Computation Management Agent for Multi-Institutional Grids. Journal of Cluster Computing 5, 237–246 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Junlin, C., Wei, Z., Jing, Z., Wei, W.: Design of cloud model controller based on multi-objective optimization. In: Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), pp. 19–24 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rothlauf, F.: Design of modern heuristics principles and application. In: Natural Computing. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kramer, O.: Self-adaptive heuristics for evolutionary computation. SCI, vol. 147. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donoso, Y., Fabregat, R.: Multi-objective optimization in computer networks using metaheuristics. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, D.S., Tan, K.C., Huang, S.Y., Goh, C.K., Ho, W.K.: On solving multiobjective bin packing problems using evolutionary particle swarm optimization. European Journal of Operational Research 190, 357–382 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fernández, A., Gil, C., Márquez, A.L., Baños, R., Montoya, M.G., Parra, M.: A memetic algorithm for two-dimensional multi-objective bin-packing with constraints. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 341–346 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Durillo, J.J., Nebro, A.J.: jMetal: a Java Framework for Multi-Objective Optimization. In: Advances in Engineering Software, pp. 760–771 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reeves, C.R.: Modern heuristic techniques for combinatorial problems. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moulton, C.M.: Hierarchical Clustering of Evolutionary Multiobjective Programming Results to Inform Land Use Planning (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garey, M.D., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, CA (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naveen, K., Karambir, R.K.: A Comparative Analysis of PMX, CX and OX Crossover operators for solving Travelling Salesman Problem. International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology 1, 98–101 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations