| Literature DB >> 31213035 |
Abstract
High-energy consumption in data centers has become a critical issue. The dynamic server consolidation has significant effects on saving energy of a data center. An effective way to consolidate virtual machines is to migrate virtual machines in real time so that some light load physical machines can be turned off or switched to low-power mode. The present challenge is to reduce the energy consumption of cloud data centers. In this paper, for the first time, a server consolidation algorithm based on the culture multiple-ant-colony algorithm was proposed for dynamic execution of virtual machine migration, thus reducing the energy consumption of cloud data centers. The server consolidation algorithm based on the culture multiple-ant-colony algorithm (CMACA) finds an approximate optimal solution through a specific target function. The simulation results show that the proposed algorithm not only reduces the energy consumption but also reduces the number of virtual machine migration.Entities:
Keywords: cloud computing; culture multiple-ant-colony algorithm; data center; energy consumption; server consolidation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31213035 PMCID: PMC6631791 DOI: 10.3390/s19122724
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Model of the server consolidation system.
Figure 2Framework of the culture multiple-ant-colony algorithm (CMACA).
Figure 3Flow chart of CMACA.
Configuration of servers.
| Servers | MIPS | PES | RAM/GB | BW/(Gbit/s) | STORAGE/GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Host1 | 1860 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Host2 | 2660 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Four kinds of virtual machine (VM) types.
| VM | MIPS | PES | RAM/MB | BW/(Mbit/s) | STORAGE/GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VM1 | 2500 | 1 | 870 | 100 | 1 |
| VM2 | 2000 | 1 | 1740 | 100 | 1 |
| VM3 | 1000 | 1 | 1740 | 100 | 2.5 |
| VM4 | 500 | 1 | 613 | 100 | 2.5 |
Workload details.
| No | Date | Number of VMs | Mean | Quartile 1 | Quartile 3. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 March 2011 | 1052 | 12.31% | 2% | 15% |
| 2 | 6 March 2011 | 898 | 11.44% | 2% | 13% |
| 3 | 9 March 2011 | 1061 | 10.70% | 2% | 13% |
| 4 | 22 March 2011 | 1516 | 9.26% | 2% | 12% |
| 5 | 25 March 2011 | 1078 | 10.56% | 2% | 14% |
| 6 | 3 April 2011 | 1463 | 12.39% | 2% | 17% |
| 7 | 9 April 2011 | 1358 | 11.12% | 2% | 15% |
| 8 | 11 April 2011 | 1233 | 11.56% | 2% | 16% |
| 9 | 12 April 2011 | 1054 | 11.54% | 2% | 16% |
| 10 | 20 April 2011 | 1033 | 10.43% | 2% | 12% |
Figure 4Comparison of energy consumption under different workloads.
Figure 5Comparison of the number of VM migrations under different workloads.
Figure 6Comparison of the number of average SLA violation under different workloads.
Figure 7Comparison of energy consumption with the ant colony system (ACS).
Figure 8Comparison of the number of VM migrations with ACS.
Result of the experiment when servers number = 1000.
| Algorithms | Number of VM Migrations | Energy Consumption (kwh) |
|---|---|---|
| IQRMC | 1329 | 13.13 |
| LRMMT | 1230 | 12.68 |
| THRMU | 3424 | 13.21 |
| CMACA | 1204 | 11.24 |