Allocating MapReduce workflows with deadlines to heterogeneous servers in a cloud data center

[EN] Total profit is one of the most important factors to be considered from the perspective of resource providers. In this paper, an original MapReduce workflow scheduling with deadline and data locality is proposed to maximize total profit of resource providers. A new workflow conversion based on dynamic programming and ChainMap/ChainReduce is designed to decrease transmission times among MapReduce jobs of workflows. A new deadline division considering execution time, float time and job level is proposed to obtain better deadlines of MapReduce jobs in workflows. With the adapted replica strategy in MapReduce workflow, a new task scheduling is proposed to improve data locality which assigns tasks to servers with the earliest completion time in order to ensure resource providers obtain more profit. Experimental results show that the proposed heuristic results in larger total profit than other adopted algorithms.This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFB1400801), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61872077, 61832004) and Collaborative Innovation Center of Wireless Communications Technology. Rubén Ruiz is partly supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities, under the project ¿OPTEP-Port Terminal Operations Optimization¿ (No. RTI2018-094940-B-I00) financed with FEDER funds¿.Wang, J.; Li, X.; Ruiz García, R.; Xu, H.; Chu, D. (2020). Allocating MapReduce workflows with deadlines to heterogeneous servers in a cloud data center. Service Oriented Computing and Applications. 14(2):101-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-020-00290-1S101118142Zaharia M, Chowdhury M, Franklin M et al (2010) Spark: cluster computing with working sets. In: Usenix conference on hot topics in cloud computing, pp 1765–1773Li L, Ma Z, Liu L et al (2013) Hadoop-based ARIMA algorithm and its application in weather forecast. Int J Database Theory Appl 6(5):119–132Xun Y, Zhang J, Qin X (2017) FiDoop: parallel mining of frequent itemsets using MapReduce. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 46(3):313–325Wang Y, Shi W (2014) Budget-driven scheduling algorithms for batches of MapReduce jobs in heterogeneous clouds. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 2(3):306–319Tiwari N, Sarkar S, Bellur U et al (2015) Classification framework of MapReduce scheduling algorithms. ACM Comput Surv 47(3):1–49Bu Y, Howe B, Balazinska M et al (2012) The HaLoop approach to large-scale iterative data analysis. VLDB J 21(2):169–190Gunarathne T, Zhang B, Wu T et al (2013) Scalable parallel computing on clouds using Twister4Azure iterative MapReduce. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(4):1035–1048Zhang Y, Gao Q, Gao L et al (2012) iMapReduce: a distributed computing framework for iterative computation. J Grid Comput 10(1):47–68Dong X, Wang Y, Liao H (2011) Scheduling mixed real-time and non-real-time applications in MapReduce environment. In: International conference on parallel and distributed systems, pp 9–16Tang Z, Zhou J, Li K et al (2013) A MapReduce task scheduling algorithm for deadline constraints. Clust Comput 16(4):651–662Zhang W, Rajasekaran S, Wood T et al (2014) MIMP: deadline and interference aware scheduling of Hadoop virtual machines. In: International symposium on cluster, cloud and grid computing, pp 394–403Teng F, Magoulès F, Yu L et al (2014) A novel real-time scheduling algorithm and performance analysis of a MapReduce-based cloud. J Supercomput 69(2):739–765Palanisamy B, Singh A, Liu L (2015) Cost-effective resource provisioning for MapReduce in a cloud. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(5):1265–1279Hashem I, Anuar N, Marjani M et al (2018) Multi-objective scheduling of MapReduce jobs in big data processing. Multimed Tools Appl 77(8):9979–9994Xu X, Tang M, Tian Y (2017) QoS-guaranteed resource provisioning for cloud-based MapReduce in dynamical environments. Future Gener Comput Syst 78(1):18–30Li H, Wei X, Fu Q et al (2014) MapReduce delay scheduling with deadline constraint. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 26(3):766–778Polo J, Becerra Y, Carrera D et al (2013) Deadline-based MapReduce workload management. IEEE Trans Netw Serv Manag 10(2):231–244Chen C, Lin J, Kuo S (2018) MapReduce scheduling for deadline-constrained jobs in heterogeneous cloud computing systems. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 6(1):127–140Kao Y, Chen Y (2016) Data-locality-aware MapReduce real-time scheduling framework. J Syst Softw 112:65–77Bok K, Hwang J, Lim J et al (2017) An efficient MapReduce scheduling scheme for processing large multimedia data. Multimed Tools Appl 76(16):1–24Chen Y, Borthakur D, Borthakur D et al (2012) Energy efficiency for large-scale MapReduce workloads with significant interactive analysis. In: ACM european conference on computer systems, pp 43–56Mashayekhy L, Nejad M, Grosu D et al (2015) Energy-aware scheduling of MapReduce jobs for big data applications. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(10):2720–2733Lei H, Zhang T, Liu Y et al (2015) SGEESS: smart green energy-efficient scheduling strategy with dynamic electricity price for data center. J Syst Softw 108:23–38Oliveira D, Ocana K, Baiao F et al (2012) A provenance-based adaptive scheduling heuristic for parallel scientific workflows in clouds. J Grid Comput 10(3):521–552Li S, Hu S, Abdelzaher T (2015) The packing server for real-time scheduling of MapReduce workflows. In: IEEE real-time and embedded technology and applications symposium, pp 51–62Cai Z, Li X, Ruiz R et al (2017) A delay-based dynamic scheduling algorithm for bag-of-task workflows with stochastic task execution times in clouds. Future Gener Comput Syst 71:57–72Cai Z, Li X, Ruiz R (2017) Resource provisioning for task-batch based workflows with deadlines in public clouds. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2017.2663426Cai Z, Li X, Gupta J (2016) Heuristics for provisioning services to workflows in XaaS clouds. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 9(2):250–263Li X, Cai Z (2017) Elastic resource provisioning for cloud workflow applications. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 14(2):1195–1210Tang Z, Liu M, Ammar A et al (2014) An optimized MapReduce workflow scheduling algorithm for heterogeneous computing. J Supercomput 72(6):1–21Xu C, Yang J, Yin K et al (2017) Optimal construction of virtual networks for cloud-based MapReduce workflows. Comput Netw 112:194–207Chiara S, Danilo A, Gianpaolo C et al (2013) Optimizing service selection and allocation in situational computing applications. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 6(3):414–428Baresi L, Elisabetta D, Carlo G et al (2007) A framework for the deployment of adaptable web service compositions. Serv Oriented Comput Appl 1(1):75–91Lim H, Herodotou H, Babu S (2012) Stubby: a transformation-based optimizer for MapReduce workflows. VLDB Endow 5(11):1196–1207Ke H, Li P, Guo S et al (2016) On traffic-aware partition and aggregation in MapReduce for big data applications. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 27(3):818–828Yu W, Wang Y, Que X et al (2015) Virtual shuffling for efficient data movement in MapReduce. IEEE Trans Comput 64(2):556–568Chowdhury M, Zaharia M, Ma J et al (2011) Managing data transfers in computer clusters with orchestra. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun 41(4):98–109Guo D, Xie J, Zhou X et al (2015) Exploiting efficient and scalable shuffle transfers in future data center network. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(4):997–1009Li D, Yu Y, He W et al (2015) Willow: saving data center network energy for network-limited flows. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 26(9):2610–2620Tan J, Meng X, Zhang L (2013) Coupling task progress for MapReduce resource-aware scheduling. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp 1618–1626Hammoud M, Rehman M, Sakr M (2012) Center-of-gravity reduce task scheduling to lower MapReduce network traffic. In: International conference on cloud computing, pp 49–58Guo Z, Fox G, Zhou M et al (2012) Improving resource utilization in MapReduce. In: International conference on cluster computing, pp 402–410Fischer M, Su X, Yin Y (2010) Assigning tasks for efficiency in Hadoop. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM symposium on parallelism in algorithms and architectures, pp 30–39Zhu Y, Jiang Y, Wu W et al (2014) Minimizing makespan and total completion time in MapReduce-like systems. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp 2166–2174Kavulya S, Tan J, Gandhi R et al (2010) An analysis of traces from a production MapReduce cluster. In: IEEE/ACM international conference on cluster, cloud and grid computing, pp 94–103Abrishami S, Naghibzadeh M, Epema D (2013) Deadline-constrained workflow scheduling algorithms for Infrastructure as a Service clouds. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(1):158–169Fernando B, Edmundo R (2010) Towards the scheduling of multiple workflows on computational grids. J Grid Comput 8(3):419–441Tiwari N, Sarkar S, Bellur U et al (2015) Classification framework of MapReduce scheduling algorithms. ACM Comput Surv 47(3):1–38Verma A, Cherkasova L, Campbell R (2013) Orchestrating an ensemble of MapReduce jobs for minimizing their makespan. IEEE Trans Dependable Secur Comput 10(5):314–327Heintz B, Chandra A, Sitaraman R et al (2017) End-to-end optimization for geo-distributed MapReduce. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 4(3):293–306Chen L, Li X (2018) Cloud workflow scheduling with hybrid resource provisioning. J Supercomput 74(12):6529–6553Li X, Jiang T, Ruiz R (2016) Heuristics for periodical batch job scheduling in a MapReduce computing framework. Inf Sci 326:119–133Vanhoucheabcd M, Maenhout B, Tavares L (2008) An evaluation of the adequacy of project network generators with systematically sampled networks. Eur J Oper Res 187(2):511–52

An Algorithm for Network and Data-aware Placement of Multi-Tier Applications in Cloud Data Centers

Today's Cloud applications are dominated by composite applications comprising multiple computing and data components with strong communication correlations among them. Although Cloud providers are deploying large number of computing and storage devices to address the ever increasing demand for computing and storage resources, network resource demands are emerging as one of the key areas of performance bottleneck. This paper addresses network-aware placement of virtual components (computing and data) of multi-tier applications in data centers and formally defines the placement as an optimization problem. The simultaneous placement of Virtual Machines and data blocks aims at reducing the network overhead of the data center network infrastructure. A greedy heuristic is proposed for the on-demand application components placement that localizes network traffic in the data center interconnect. Such optimization helps reducing communication overhead in upper layer network switches that will eventually reduce the overall traffic volume across the data center. This, in turn, will help reducing packet transmission delay, increasing network performance, and minimizing the energy consumption of network components. Experimental results demonstrate performance superiority of the proposed algorithm over other approaches where it outperforms the state-of-the-art network-aware application placement algorithm across all performance metrics by reducing the average network cost up to 67% and network usage at core switches up to 84%, as well as increasing the average number of application deployments up to 18%.Comment: Submitted for publication consideration for the Journal of Network and Computer Applications (JNCA). Total page: 28. Number of figures: 15 figure

InterCloud: Utility-Oriented Federation of Cloud Computing Environments for Scaling of Application Services

Cloud computing providers have setup several data centers at different geographical locations over the Internet in order to optimally serve needs of their customers around the world. However, existing systems do not support mechanisms and policies for dynamically coordinating load distribution among different Cloud-based data centers in order to determine optimal location for hosting application services to achieve reasonable QoS levels. Further, the Cloud computing providers are unable to predict geographic distribution of users consuming their services, hence the load coordination must happen automatically, and distribution of services must change in response to changes in the load. To counter this problem, we advocate creation of federated Cloud computing environment (InterCloud) that facilitates just-in-time, opportunistic, and scalable provisioning of application services, consistently achieving QoS targets under variable workload, resource and network conditions. The overall goal is to create a computing environment that supports dynamic expansion or contraction of capabilities (VMs, services, storage, and database) for handling sudden variations in service demands. This paper presents vision, challenges, and architectural elements of InterCloud for utility-oriented federation of Cloud computing environments. The proposed InterCloud environment supports scaling of applications across multiple vendor clouds. We have validated our approach by conducting a set of rigorous performance evaluation study using the CloudSim toolkit. The results demonstrate that federated Cloud computing model has immense potential as it offers significant performance gains as regards to response time and cost saving under dynamic workload scenarios.Comment: 20 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables, conference pape

Adaptive Dispatching of Tasks in the Cloud

The increasingly wide application of Cloud Computing enables the consolidation of tens of thousands of applications in shared infrastructures. Thus, meeting the quality of service requirements of so many diverse applications in such shared resource environments has become a real challenge, especially since the characteristics and workload of applications differ widely and may change over time. This paper presents an experimental system that can exploit a variety of online quality of service aware adaptive task allocation schemes, and three such schemes are designed and compared. These are a measurement driven algorithm that uses reinforcement learning, secondly a "sensible" allocation algorithm that assigns jobs to sub-systems that are observed to provide a lower response time, and then an algorithm that splits the job arrival stream into sub-streams at rates computed from the hosts' processing capabilities. All of these schemes are compared via measurements among themselves and with a simple round-robin scheduler, on two experimental test-beds with homogeneous and heterogeneous hosts having different processing capacities.Comment: 10 pages, 9 figure