| Literature DB >> 34084936 |
Arash Heidari1, Nima Jafari Navimipour2.
Abstract
Cloud computing is one of the most important computing patterns that use a pay-as-you-go manner to process data and execute applications. Therefore, numerous enterprises are migrating their applications to cloud environments. Not only do intensive applications deal with enormous quantities of data, but they also demonstrate compute-intensive properties very frequently. The dynamicity, coupled with the ambiguity between marketed resources and resource requirement queries from users, remains important issues that hamper efficient discovery in a cloud environment. Cloud service discovery becomes a complex problem because of the increase in network size and complexity. Complexity and network size keep increasing dynamically, making it a complex NP-hard problem that requires effective service discovery approaches. One of the most famous cloud service discovery methods is the Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm; however, it suffers from a load balancing problem among the discovered nodes. If the workload balance is inefficient, it limits the use of resources. This paper solved this problem by applying an Inverted Ant Colony Optimization (IACO) algorithm for load-aware service discovery in cloud computing. The IACO considers the pheromones' repulsion instead of attraction. We design a model for service discovery in the cloud environment to overcome the traditional shortcomings. Numerical results demonstrate that the proposed mechanism can obtain an efficient service discovery method. The algorithm is simulated using a CloudSim simulator, and the result shows better performance. Reducing energy consumption, mitigate response time, and better Service Level Agreement (SLA) violation in the cloud environments are the advantages of the proposed method.Entities:
Keywords: Cloud computing; Discovery; Inverted ant colony; Resource; SLA; Service
Year: 2021 PMID: 34084936 PMCID: PMC8157213 DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.539
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ Comput Sci ISSN: 2376-5992
Figure 1(A) Different layers of the cloud computing model. (B) Discovery model.
Figure 2Example of ACO in terms of path selection.
CSD_IACO.
| Input(); |
| Initial a max_ttl; Ant_count; Variable declaration; |
| pher_edge[i][ant[i][1]]=pher_edge[i][ant[i][1]]+dep_phr; |
| pher_edge[i][ant[i][1]]=pher_edge[i][ant[i][1]]-MIN_TTL*dep_phr; |
| next step(i); |
| step++; |
| Best ant pheromone => detect maximum pheromone in all machine |
| Post process results and visualization; |
Figure 3Flowchart of the proposed method.
Figure 4(A) Assigning ants to VMs. (B) Moving the ants to machines with more pheromones.
Host class and VM characteristics.
| Specification of the host class | Specification of VM | |
|---|---|---|
| CPU Speed | 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 MIPS | 250, 500, 750, 1,000 MIPS |
| RAM | 10,000 MB | 128 MB |
| BW | 100,000 Mbit/s | 200 Mbit/s |
| HARD | 1,000,000 GB | 250 GB |
The amount of energy consumed, response time, and SLA differences by using the four algorithms in 10 times experiments.
| Experiment | CSD_IACO | FIPA-CD | SSSD | ACOD | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | Response time | SLA | Energy | Response time | SLA | Energy | Response time | SLA | Energy | Response time | SLA | |
| 1 | 0.42 | 545 | 0.46 | 580 | 565.23 | 0.49 | 610 | 610.32 | 0.55 | 660 | ||
| 2 | 0.44 | 530 | 0.48 | 566 | 585.63 | 0.52 | 575 | 573.77 | 0.54 | 654 | ||
| 3 | 0.43 | 560 | 0.47 | 587 | 546.33 | 0.51 | 600 | 560.75 | 0.53 | 652 | ||
| 4 | 0.42 | 576 | 0.48 | 590 | 544.92 | 0.52 | 604 | 550.20 | 0.55 | 650 | ||
| 5 | 0.40 | 545 | 0.47 | 580 | 565.25 | 0.52 | 610 | 610.43 | 0.56 | 640 | ||
| 6 | 0.40 | 530 | 0.49 | 573 | 580.53 | 0.53 | 601 | 572.76 | 0.56 | 652 | ||
| 7 | 0.40.5 | 490 | 0.44 | 560 | 566.22 | 0.56 | 600 | 600.53 | 0.56 | 682 | ||
| 8 | 0.43 | 565 | 0.48 | 571 | 530.52 | 0.56 | 613 | 589.16 | 0.57 | 677 | ||
| 9 | 0.39 | 533 | 0.46 | 587 | 560.72 | 0.52 | 602 | 587.68 | 0.55 | 684 | ||
| 10 | 0.40 | 537 | 0.47 | 589 | 590.24 | 0.55 | 599 | 620.42 | 0.59 | 664 | ||
Figure 5Energy consumption with increasing complexity.
Figure 7SLA values with increasing complexity.
Average improvement percentage of all three parameters.
| Parameter | Average percentage improvement compared to FIPA-CD (%) | Average percentage improvement compared to SSSD (%) | Average percentage improvement compared to ACOD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy consumption | 13.3 | 16.7 | 19.1 |
| Response time | 16.4 | 19.4 | 21 |
| SLA | 6.6 | 9.1 | 12.2 |