Enacting SLAs in Clouds Using Rules

  • Michael Maurer
  • Ivona Brandic
  • Rizos Sakellariou
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6852)


The emergence of Cloud Computing raises the question of dynamically allocating resources of physical (PM) and virtual machines (VM) in an on-demand and autonomic way. Yet, using Cloud Computing infrastructures efficiently requires fulfilling three partially contradicting goals: first, achieving low violation rates of Service Level Agreements (SLA) that define non-functional goals between the Cloud provider and the customer; second, achieving high resource utilization; and third achieving the first two issues by as few time- and energy consuming reallocation actions as possible. To achieve these goals we propose a novel approach with escalation levels to divide all possible actions into five levels. These levels range from changing the configuration of VMs over migrating them to other PMs to outsourcing applications to other Cloud providers. In this paper we focus on changing the resource configuration of VMs in terms of storage, memory, CPU power and bandwidth, and propose a knowledge management approach using rules with threat thresholds to tackle this problem. Simulation reveals major improvements as compared to recent related work considering SLA violations, resource utilization and action efficiency, as well as time performance.


Cloud Computing Virtual Machine Service Level Agreement Cloud Provider Cloud Infrastructure 
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.
  2. 2.
    Application Performance Management in Virtualized Server Environments (2006),
  3. 3.
    Bahati, R.M., Bauer, M.A.: Adapting to run-time changes in policies driving autonomic management. In: ICAS 2008: Proceedings of the 4th Int. Conf. on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bichler, M., Setzer, T., Speitkamp, B.: Capacity Planning for Virtualized Servers. Presented at Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (WITS), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dutreilh, X., Rivierre, N., Moreau, A., Malenfant, J., Truck, I.: From data center resource allocation to control theory and back. In: 2010 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2010, pp. 410–417 (July 2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalyvianaki, E., Charalambous, T., Hand, S.: Self-adaptive and self-configured cpu resource provisioning for virtualized servers using kalman filters. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Autonomic Computing, ICAC 2009, pp. 117–126. ACM, New York (2009), Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karp, R.M.: Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In: Miller, R.E., Thatcher, J.W. (eds.) Complexity of Computer Computations: Proc. of a Symp. on the Complexity of Computer Computations, pp. 85–103. Plenum Press (1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khargharia, B., Hariri, S., Yousif, M.S.: Autonomic power and performance management for computing systems. Cluster Computing 11(2), 167–181 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koumoutsos, G., Denazis, S., Thramboulidis, K.: SLA e-negotiations, enforcement and management in an autonomic environment. In: Modelling Autonomic Communications Environments, pp. 120–125 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maurer, M., Brandic, I., Sakellariou, R.: Simulating autonomic SLA enactment in clouds using case based reasoning. In: Di Nitto, E., Yahyapour, R. (eds.) ServiceWave 2010. LNCS, vol. 6481, pp. 25–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mazzucco, M., Dyachuk, D., Deters, R.: Maximizing cloud providers’ revenues via energy aware allocation policies. In: CLOUD 2010, pp. 131–138 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meng, X., Isci, C., Kephart, J., Zhang, L., Bouillet, E., Pendarakis, D.: Efficient resource provisioning in compute clouds via VM multiplexing. In: Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Autonomic Computing, ICAC 2010, pp. 11–20. ACM, New York (2010), Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paschke, A., Bichler, M.: Knowledge representation concepts for automated SLA management. Decision Support Systems 46(1), 187–205 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petrucci, V., Loques, O., Mossé, D.: A dynamic optimization model for power and performance management of virtualized clusters. In: e-Energy 2010, pp. 225–233. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao, J., Bu, X., Xu, C.-Z., Wang, L., Yin, G.: Vconf: a reinforcement learning approach to virtual machines auto-configuration. In: ICAC 2009, pp. 137–146. ACM, New York (2009), Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rochwerger, B., et al.: The RESERVOIR model and architecture for open federated cloud computing. IBM Journal of Research and Development 53(4) (2009),
  17. 17.
    Singh, R., Sharma, U., Cecchet, E., Shenoy, P.: Autonomic mix-aware provisioning for non-stationary data center workloads. In: ICAC 2010, pp. 21–30. ACM, New York (2010), Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wood, T., Shenoy, P., Venkataramani, A., Yousif, M.: Sandpiper: Black-box and gray-box resource management for virtual machines. Computer Networks 53(17), 2923–2938 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yazir, Y.O., Matthews, C., Farahbod, R., Neville, S., Guitouni, A., Ganti, S., Coady, Y.: Dynamic resource allocation in computing clouds using distributed multiple criteria decision analysis. In: 2010 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), pp. 91–98 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Maurer
    • 1
  • Ivona Brandic
    • 1
  • Rizos Sakellariou
    • 2
  1. 1.Distributed Systems GroupVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterU.K.

Personalised recommendations