| Literature DB >> 24737962 |
Supriya Kinger1, Rajesh Kumar2, Anju Sharma2.
Abstract
Cloud computing has rapidly emerged as a widely accepted computing paradigm, but the research on Cloud computing is still at an early stage. Cloud computing provides many advanced features but it still has some shortcomings such as relatively high operating cost and environmental hazards like increasing carbon footprints. These hazards can be reduced up to some extent by efficient scheduling of Cloud resources. Working temperature on which a machine is currently running can be taken as a criterion for Virtual Machine (VM) scheduling. This paper proposes a new proactive technique that considers current and maximum threshold temperature of Server Machines (SMs) before making scheduling decisions with the help of a temperature predictor, so that maximum temperature is never reached. Different workload scenarios have been taken into consideration. The results obtained show that the proposed system is better than existing systems of VM scheduling, which does not consider current temperature of nodes before making scheduling decisions. Thus, a reduction in need of cooling systems for a Cloud environment has been obtained and validated.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24737962 PMCID: PMC3967661 DOI: 10.1155/2014/208983
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Virtualization platforms.
Figure 2Power consumption depending on a number of μOps [6].
Figure 3Proposed system design.
Algorithm 1Proactive thermal VM scheduling.
Hardware configuration.
| Type | Specification1 | Specification2 |
|---|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i7-3612QM | Intel Core i7-860 |
| CPU speed | 2.1 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Memory | 2 GB | 4 GHz |
| Operating system | Windows 7, 32 bits | Linux |
| Number of cores | 04 | 04 |
Workload scenarios.
| Load on node 1 | Load on node 2 | Load on node 3 | Load on node 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario 1 | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Scenario 2 | High | Idle | Moderate | Moderate |
| Scenario 3 | High | Idle | Idle | Moderate |
| Scenario 4 | High | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Scenario 5 | High | High | High | Idle |
Unified list (S1).
| Node ID | Current temperature | Threshold temperature |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 58 | 65 |
| 2 | 34 | 65 |
| 3 | 44 | 68 |
| 4 | 56 | 68 |
Local list of node 1 (S1).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 5 | 16 | 1 | 126 |
| VM2 | RHEl 6 | 19 | 1 | 512 |
| VM3 | Windows XP | 25 | 2 | 128 |
Local list of node 2 (S1).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 6 | 18 | 1 | 128 |
| VM2 | Windows XP | 25 | 1 | 128 |
Local list of node 3 (S1).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEL 6 | 18 | 1 | 128 |
| VM2 | Windows XP | 15 | 1 | 128 |
| VM3 | Windows XP | 35 | 1 | 256 |
Local list of node 4 (S1).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEL 6 | 15 | 1 | 256 |
| VM2 | Windows XP | 10 | 1 | 128 |
| VM3 | Windows XP | 11 | 1 | 128 |
Predict table (S1).
| Node ID | Threshold temperature ( | Predicted temperature ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 65 | 62 | 03 |
| 2 | 65 | 40 | 25 |
| 3 | 68 | 51 | 17 |
| 4 | 68 | 63 | 05 |
Unified list (S1).
| Node ID | Current temperature | Threshold temperature |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 58 | 65 |
| 2 | 41.5 | 65 |
| 3 | 44.5 | 68 |
| 4 | 56.5 | 68 |
Local list of node 1 (S1).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 5 | 16 | 1 | 126 |
| VM2 | RHEl 6 | 19 | 1 | 512 |
| VM3 | Windows XP | 25 | 2 | 128 |
Local list of node 2 (S1).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 6 | 18 | 1 | 128 |
| VM2 | Windows XP | 25 | 1 | 128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Local list of node 3 (S1).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEL 6 | 18 | 1 | 128 |
| VM2 | Windows XP | 18 | 1 | 128 |
| VM3 | Windows XP | 35 | 1 | 256 |
Local list of node 4 (S1).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEL 6 | 16 | 1 | 256 |
| VM2 | Windows XP | 10 | 1 | 128 |
| VM3 | Windows XP | 11 | 1 | 128 |
Figure 4Comparison of FCFS, %CPU utilization, and predicted temperature based scheduling for Scenario 1.
Unified list (S2).
| Node ID | Current temperature | Threshold temperature |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 | 65 |
| 2 | 21 | 65 |
| 3 | 38 | 68 |
| 4 | 39 | 68 |
Local list of node 1 (S2).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 5 | 15 | 1 | 126 |
| VM2 | RHEl 6 | 18 | 1 | 512 |
| VM3 | RHEL 6 | 16.2 | 2 | 256 |
| VM4 | Windows XP | 24 | 1 | 136 |
| VM5 | Windows XP | 12 | 2 | 128 |
Local list of node 2 (S2).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∗ |
*Represents absence of any active VM.
Local list of node 3 (S2).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 5 | 15 | 1 | 126 |
| VM2 | RHEl 6 | 18 | 1 | 512 |
Local list of node 4 (S2).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processors | RAM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 5 | 20 | 1 | 126 |
| VM2 | RHEl 6 | 16 | 1 | 512 |
Predict table (S2).
| Node ID | Threshold temperature ( | Predicted temperature ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 65 | 70 | −05 |
| 3 | 68 | 49 | 19 |
| 4 | 68 | 50 | 18 |
Unified list (S2).
| Node ID | Current temperature | Threshold temperature |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 | 65 |
| 3 | 48 | 68 |
| 4 | 39 | 68 |
Local list of node 1 (S2).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processing cores | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 5 | 14 | 1 | 128 |
| VM2 | RHEl 6 | 16 | 1 | 512 |
| VM3 | RHEL 6 | 15.1 | 2 | 256 |
| VM4 | Windows XP | 26 | 1 | 136 |
| VM5 | Windows XP | 20 | 2 | 128 |
Local list of node 3 (S2).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processing cores | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 5 | 15 | 1 | 126 |
| VM2 | RHEl 6 | 18 | 1 | 512 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Local list of node 4 (S2).
| VM name | Operating system | CPU utilization (%) | Number of processing cores | RAM (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | RHEl 5 | 20 | 1 | 126 |
| VM2 | RHEl 6 | 16 | 1 | 512 |
Figure 5Comparison of FCFS, %CPU Utilization, and predicted temperature based scheduling for Scenario 2.
Figure 6Comparison of actual and predicted temperature for Scenarios 1–5.