| Literature DB >> 30646575 |
Hai Xue1, Kyung Tae Kim2, Hee Yong Youn3.
Abstract
Load Balancing (LB) is one of the most important tasks required to maximize network performance, scalability and robustness. Nowadays, with the emergence of Software-Defined Networking (SDN), LB for SDN has become a very important issue. SDN decouples the control plane from the data forwarding plane to implement centralized control of the whole network. LB assigns the network traffic to the resources in such a way that no one resource is overloaded and therefore the overall performance is maximized. The Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm has been recognized to be effective for LB of SDN among several existing optimization algorithms. The convergence latency and searching optimal solution are the key criteria of ACO. In this paper, a novel dynamic LB scheme that integrates genetic algorithm (GA) with ACO for further enhancing the performance of SDN is proposed. It capitalizes the merit of fast global search of GA and efficient search of an optimal solution of ACO. Computer simulation results show that the proposed scheme substantially improves the Round Robin and ACO algorithm in terms of the rate of searching optimal path, round trip time, and packet loss rate.Entities:
Keywords: Ant Colony Optimization; Software Defined Networking; genetic algorithm; genetic-Ant Colony Optimization; load balancing
Year: 2019 PMID: 30646575 PMCID: PMC6358931 DOI: 10.3390/s19020311
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
The fields of a flow entry in the flow table.
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| Match | Port, packet header, and metadata forwarded from the previous flow table |
| Priority | Matching precedence of the entry |
| Counter | Statistics for matching the packets |
| Instruction | Action or pipeline processing |
| Timeout | Maximum effective time or free time before the entry is overdue |
| Cookie | Opaque data sent by the OpenFlow controller |
Figure 1The structure of SDN based on the OpenFlow protocol.
Figure 2The test topology.
Figure 3The flowchart of the proposed G-ACO.
The specification of the PCs.
| PC1 | PC2 | |
|---|---|---|
| OS | Windows 10 | Ubuntu 16.04 |
| Virtual Machine | VMware Workstation 12 | None |
| CPU | i3-4150 | i3-4350 |
| RAM | 8G | 8G |
| Hard Disk | 500G | 500G |
Figure 4The result of flow table delivery.
Figure 5The target fat-tree topology.
The number of iterations with different ρ.
| Pheromone Volatilization Factor ( | Iterations |
|---|---|
| 0.1 | 3 |
| 0.3 | 7 |
| 0.5 | 8 |
| 0.7 | 13 |
| 0.9 | 28 |
The number iterations taken to find an optimal path.
|
|
| Iterations |
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 33 |
| 0.1 | 0.5 | 17 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 8 |
| 1 | 2 | 7 |
| 3 | 7 | 3 |
| 5 | 9 | 2 |
The number of ants and iterations.
|
| Iterations |
|---|---|
| 2 | 20 |
| 4 | 12 |
| 6 | 10 |
| 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 2 |
Figure 6The comparison of success rates.
Figure 7The comparison of RTTs with 5-minute simulation time.
Figure 8The comparison of packet loss rates.
Figure 9The comparison of RTTs with 10-minute simulation time.
Figure 10The comparison of packet loss rates.
The selected path with the three schemes.
| Destination | RR & ACO | G-ACO |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
|
Figure 11The 14-node topology.
Figure 12The comparison of running time with the 14-node topology.