Performance-oriented Cloud Provisioning: Taxonomy and Survey

Cloud computing is being viewed as the technology of today and the future. Through this paradigm, the customers gain access to shared computing resources located in remote data centers that are hosted by cloud providers (CP). This technology allows for provisioning of various resources such as virtual machines (VM), physical machines, processors, memory, network, storage and software as per the needs of customers. Application providers (AP), who are customers of the CP, deploy applications on the cloud infrastructure and then these applications are used by the end-users. To meet the fluctuating application workload demands, dynamic provisioning is essential and this article provides a detailed literature survey of dynamic provisioning within cloud systems with focus on application performance. The well-known types of provisioning and the associated problems are clearly and pictorially explained and the provisioning terminology is clarified. A very detailed and general cloud provisioning classification is presented, which views provisioning from different perspectives, aiding in understanding the process inside-out. Cloud dynamic provisioning is explained by considering resources, stakeholders, techniques, technologies, algorithms, problems, goals and more.Comment: 14 pages, 3 figures, 3 table

Self-Learning Cloud Controllers: Fuzzy Q-Learning for Knowledge Evolution

Cloud controllers aim at responding to application demands by automatically scaling the compute resources at runtime to meet performance guarantees and minimize resource costs. Existing cloud controllers often resort to scaling strategies that are codified as a set of adaptation rules. However, for a cloud provider, applications running on top of the cloud infrastructure are more or less black-boxes, making it difficult at design time to define optimal or pre-emptive adaptation rules. Thus, the burden of taking adaptation decisions often is delegated to the cloud application. Yet, in most cases, application developers in turn have limited knowledge of the cloud infrastructure. In this paper, we propose learning adaptation rules during runtime. To this end, we introduce FQL4KE, a self-learning fuzzy cloud controller. In particular, FQL4KE learns and modifies fuzzy rules at runtime. The benefit is that for designing cloud controllers, we do not have to rely solely on precise design-time knowledge, which may be difficult to acquire. FQL4KE empowers users to specify cloud controllers by simply adjusting weights representing priorities in system goals instead of specifying complex adaptation rules. The applicability of FQL4KE has been experimentally assessed as part of the cloud application framework ElasticBench. The experimental results indicate that FQL4KE outperforms our previously developed fuzzy controller without learning mechanisms and the native Azure auto-scaling

Fuzzy Self-Learning Controllers for Elasticity Management in Dynamic Cloud Architectures

Cloud controllers support the operation and quality management of dynamic cloud architectures by automatically scaling the compute resources to meet performance guarantees and minimize resource costs. Existing cloud controllers often resort to scaling strategies that are codified as a set of architecture adaptation rules. However, for a cloud provider, deployed application architectures are black-boxes, making it difficult at design time to define optimal or pre-emptive adaptation rules. Thus, the burden of taking adaptation decisions often is delegated to the cloud application. We propose the dynamic learning of adaptation rules for deployed application architectures in the cloud. We introduce FQL4KE, a self-learning fuzzy controller that learns and modifies fuzzy rules at runtime. The benefit is that we do not have to rely solely on precise design-time knowledge, which may be difficult to acquire. FQL4KE empowers users to configure cloud controllers by simply adjusting weights representing priorities for architecture quality instead of defining complex rules. FQL4KE has been experimentally validated using the cloud application framework ElasticBench in Azure and OpenStack. The experimental results demonstrate that FQL4KE outperforms both a fuzzy controller without learning and the native Azure auto-scalin

AUTO-SCALING AND ADJUSTMENT PLATFORM FOR CLOUD-BASED SYSTEMS

For customers of cloud-computing platforms it is important to minimize the infrastructure footprint and associated costs while providing required levels of Quality of Service (QoS) and Quality of Experience (QoE) dictated by the Service Level Agreement (SLA). To assist with that cloud service providers are offering: (1) horizontal resource scaling through provisioning and destruction of virtual machines and containers, (2) vertical scaling through changing the capacity of individual cloud nodes. Existing scaling solutions mostly concentrate on low-level metrics like CPU load and memory consumption which doesn’t always correlate with the level of SLA conformity. Such technical measures should be preprocessed and viewed from a higher level of abstraction. Application level metrics should also be considered when deciding upon scaling the cloud-based solution. Existing scaling platforms are mostly proprietary technologies owned by cloud service providers themselves or by third parties and offered as Software as a Service. Enterprise applications could span infrastructures of multiple public and private clouds, dictating that the auto-scaling solution should not be isolated inside a single cloud infrastructure. The goal of this paper is to address the challenges above by presenting the architecture of Auto-scaling and Adjustment Platform for Cloud-based Systems (ASAPCS). It is based on open-source technologies and supports integration of various low and high level performance metrics, providing higher levels of abstraction for design of scaling algorithms. ASAPCS can be used with any cloud service provider and guarantees that move from one cloud platform to another will not result in complete redesign of the scaling algorithm. ASAPCS itself is horizontally scalable and can process large amounts of real-time data which is particularly important for applications developed following the microservices architectural style. ASAPCS approaches the scaling problem in a nonstandard way by considering real-time adjustments of the application logic to be part of the scalability strategy if it can result in performance improvements

Auto-scaling a video-conference platform with Reinforcement learning

One of the capabilities that video-conferencing platforms are expected to have, as well as other distributed services, is being able to scale horizontally. This is because workload is not constant in a lot of applications, so setting a fixed number of servers beforehand will probably end up with either bad quality of service when load is too high, or resources wasted when load is too low. From the service providers's point of view both situations are undesirable. On the one side, they may be penalised when not delivering sufficient quality of service to their users. On the other side, having servers infra-used is inefficient, as more servers running imply higher electricity/renting costs. Therefore this auto-scaling capability is crucial in order to optimize the expenses at the end of the month. In this work we develop an auto-scaling algorithm based on Reinforcement learning (RL) to be applied to the adjustment of computing capacity of a distributed video-conference platform such as Jitsi and perform a comparison with simple threshold based methods (TBM), which are offered by many cloud providers as the default auto-scaling service. We perform this comparison under different synthetic workload patterns. Since video-conferencing platforms consume a lot of computing resources and we want to analyse different high loads, the comparison is done with simulations. We demonstrate that RL performs better than TBM in all the scenarios evaluated in terms of money expended (with different patterns tested) and that the difference between them is accentuated the more complex the workload pattern is

RAYGO: Reserve As You GO

The capability to predict the precise resource requirements of a microservice-based application is a very important problem for cloud services. In fact, the allocation of abundant resources guarantees an excellent quality of experience (QoE) for the hosted services, but it can translate into unnecessary costs for the cloud customer due to the reserved (but unused) resources. On the other side, poor resource provisioning may turn out in scarce performance when experiencing an unexpected peak of demand. This paper proposes RAYGO, a novel approach for dynamic resource provisioning to microservices in Kubernetes that (i) reliefs the customers from the definition of appropriate execution boundaries, (ii) ensures the right amount of resources at any time, according to the past and the predicted usage, and (iii) operates at the application level, acknowledging the dependency between multiple correlated microservices

A survey on elasticity management in PaaS systems

[EN] Elasticity is a goal of cloud computing. An elastic system should manage in an autonomic way its resources, being adaptive to dynamic workloads, allocating additional resources when workload is increased and deallocating resources when workload decreases. PaaS providers should manage resources of customer applications with the aim of converting those applications into elastic services. This survey identifies the requirements that such management imposes on a PaaS provider: autonomy, scalability, adaptivity, SLA awareness, composability and upgradeability. This document delves into the variety of mechanisms that have been proposed to deal with all those requirements. Although there are multiple approaches to address those concerns, providers main goal is maximisation of profits. This compels providers to look for balancing two opposed goals: maximising quality of service and minimising costs. Because of this, there are still several aspects that deserve additional research for finding optimal adaptability strategies. Those open issues are also discussed.This work has been partially supported by EU FEDER and Spanish MINECO under research Grant TIN2012-37719-C03-01.Muñoz-Escoí, FD.; Bernabeu Aubán, JM. (2017). A survey on elasticity management in PaaS systems. Computing. 99(7):617-656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-016-0507-8S617656997Ajmani S (2004) Automatic software upgrades for distributed systems. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USAAjmani S, Liskov B, Shrira L (2006) Modular software upgrades for distributed systems. In: 20th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), Nantes, France, pp 452–476Alhamad M, Dillon TS, Chang E (2010) Conceptual SLA framework for cloud computing. In: 4th International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST), Dubai, pp 606–610Almeida S, Leitão J, Rodrigues LET (2013) ChainReaction: a causal+ consistent datastore based on chain replication. In: 8th EuroSys Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 85–98Araujo J, Matos R, Maciel PRM, Matias R (2011) Software aging issues on the Eucalyptus cloud computing infrastructure. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Anchorage, Alaska, USA, pp 1411–1416Arief LB, Speirs NA (2000) A UML tool for an automatic generation of simulation programs. In: Worshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), Ottawa, Canada, pp 71–76Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, Joseph AD, Katz RH, Konwinski A, Lee G, Patterson DA, Rabkin A, Stoica I, Zaharia M (2010) A view of cloud computing. Commun ACM 53(4):50–58Bailis P, Ghodsi A (2013) Eventual consistency today: limitations, extensions, and beyond. Commun ACM 56(5):55–63Bailis P, Ghodsi A, Hellerstein JM, Stoica I (2013) Bolt-on causal consistency. In: Intnl Conf Mgmnt Data (SIGMOD). NY, USA, New York, pp 761–772Balsamo S, Marco AD, Inverardi P, Simeoni M (2004) Model-based performance prediction in software development: a survey. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(5):295–310Barham P, Dragovic B, Fraser K, Hand S, Harris TL, Ho A, Neugebauer R, Pratt I, Warfield A (2003) Xen and the art of virtualization. In: 19th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), Bolton Landing, NY, USA, pp 164–177Bennani MN, Menascé DA (2005) Resource allocation for autonomic data centers using analytic performance models. In: 2nd Intnl Conf Auton Comput (ICAC), Seattle, WA, USA, pp 229–240Birman KP (1996) Building Secure and Reliable Network Applications. Manning Publications Co., ISBN 1-884777-29-5Bloom T (1983) Dynamic module replacement in a distributed programming system. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USABloom T, Day M (1993) Reconfiguration and module replacement in Argus: theory and practice. Softw Eng J 8(2):102–108Caballer M, Segrelles Quilis JD, Moltó G, Blanquer I (2015) A platform to deploy customized scientific virtual infrastructures on the cloud. Concurr Comput Pract E 27(16):4318–4329Calatrava A, Romero E, Moltó G, Caballer M, Alonso JM (2016) Self-managed cost-efficient virtual elastic clusters on hybrid cloud infrastructures. Future Gener Comp Syst 61:13–25Calcavecchia NM, Caprarescu BA, Nitto ED, Dubois DJ, Petcu D (2012) DEPAS: a decentralized probabilistic algorithm for auto-scaling. Computing 94(8–10):701–730Casalicchio E, Silvestri L (2013) Mechanisms for SLA provisioning in cloud-based service providers. Comput Netw 57(3):795–810Casalicchio E, Menascé DA, Aldhalaan A (2013) Autonomic resource provisioning in cloud systems with availability goals. In: ACM Cloud Autonomic Computing Conference (CAC), FL, USA, Miami, pp 1–10Chang F, Dean J, Ghemawat S, Hsieh WC, Wallach DA, Burrows M, Chandra T, Fikes A, Gruber RE (2008) Bigtable: a distributed storage system for structured data. ACM Trans Comput Syst 26(2):4Copil G, Trihinas D, Truong HL, Moldovan D, Pallis G, Dustdar S, Dikaiakos MD (2014) ADVISE—A framework for evaluating cloud service elasticity behavior. In: 12th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC), France, Paris, pp 275–290Cotroneo D, Natella R, Pietrantuono R, Russo S (2014) A survey of software aging and rejuvenation studies. ACM J Emerg Technol 10(1):8:1–8:34Coutinho EF, de Carvalho Sousa FR, Rego PAL, Gomes DG, de Souza JN (2015) Elasticity in cloud computing: a survey. Ann Telecommun 70(15):289–309Dawoud W, Takouna I, Meinel C (2011) Elastic VM for cloud resources provisioning optimization. In: 1st International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communications (ACC), Kochi, India, pp 431–445de Juan-Marín R, Decker H, Armendáriz-Íñigo JE, Bernabéu-Aubán JM, Muñoz-EscoíFD (2015) Scalability approaches for causal multicast: a survey. Computing (in press)de Miguel M, Lambolais T, Hannouz M, Betgé-Brezetz S, Piekarec S (2000) UML extensions for the specification and evaluation of latency constraints in architectural models. In: Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), Ottawa, Canada, pp 83–88Demers AJ, Greene DH, Hauser C, Irish W, Larson J, Shenker S, Sturgis HE, Swinehart DC, Terry DB (1987) Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance. In: 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), Vancouver, Canada, pp 1–12Dustdar S, Guo Y, Satzger B, Truong HL (2011) Principles of elastic processes. IEEE Internet Comput 15(5):66–71Emeakaroha VC, Brandic I, Maurer M, Dustdar S (2013) Cloud resource provisioning and SLA enforcement via LoM2HiS framework. Concurr Comput Pract E 25(10):1462–1481Felter W, Ferreira A, Rajamony R, Rubio J (2015) An updated performance comparison of virtual machines and Linux containers. In: IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 171–172Fox A, Brewer EA (1999) Harvest, yield and scalable tolerant systems. In: 7th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), Rio Rico, Arizona, USA, pp 174–178Galante G, De Bona LCE (2012) A survey on cloud computing elasticity. In: 5th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), Chicago, IL, USA, pp 263–270Galante G, De Bona LCE, Mury AR, Schulze B, Righi RR (2016) An analysis of public clouds elasticity in the execution of scientific applications: a survey. J Grid Comput 14(2):193–216Gambi A, Hummer W, Truong HL, Dustdar S (2013) Testing elastic computing systems. IEEE Internet Comput 17(6):76–82Garg S, van Moorsel APA, Vaidyanathan K, Trivedi KS (1998) A methodology for detection and estimation of software aging. In: 9th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), Paderborn, Germany, pp 283–292Gey F, Landuyt DV, Joosen W (2015) Middleware for customizable multi-staged dynamic upgrades of multi-tenant SaaS applications. In: 8th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), Limassol, Cyprus, pp 102–111Gilbert S, Lynch NA (2002) Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. SIGACT News 33(2):51–59Gong Z, Gu X, Wilkes J (2010) PRESS: PRedictive Elastic reSource Scaling for cloud systems. In: 6th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), Niagara Falls, Canada, pp 9–16Grozev N, Buyya R (2014) Inter-cloud architectures and application brokering: taxonomy and survey. Softw Pract Exp 44(3):369–390Hammer M (2009) How to touch a running system. reconfiguration of stateful components. PhD thesis, Facultät für Mathematik, Informatik und Statistik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, GermanyHasan MZ, Magana E, Clemm A, Tucker L, Gudreddi SLD (2012) Integrated and autonomic cloud resource scaling. In: IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS), Maui, HI, USA, pp 1327–1334Herbst NR, Kounev S, Reussner R (2013) Elasticity in cloud computing: What it is, and what it is not. In: 10th International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC), San Jose, CA, USA, pp 23–27Hermanns H, Herzog U, Katoen J (2002) Process algebra for performance evaluation. Theor Comput Sci 274(1–2):43–87Horn P (2001) Autonomic computing: IBM’s perspective on the state of information technology. Tech. rep. IBM PressHuebscher MC, McCann JA (2008) A survey of autonomic computing—degrees, models, and applications. ACM Comput Surv 40(3):7Hwang J, Zeng S, Wu F, Wood T (2013) A component-based performance comparison of four hypervisors. In: International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM), Ghent, Belgium, pp 269–276IBM (2006) An architectural blueprint for autonomic computing. White paper, 4th edIosup A, Ostermann S, Yigitbasi N, Prodan R, Fahringer T, Epema DHJ (2011) Performance analysis of cloud computing services for many-tasks scientific computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 22(6):931–945Ivanovic D, Carro M, Hermenegildo MV (2013) A sharing-based approach to supporting adaptation in service compositions. Computing 95(6):453–492Jiang Y, Perng C, Li T, Chang RN (2011) ASAP: A self-adaptive prediction system for instant cloud resource demand provisioning. In: 11th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), Vancouver, Canada, pp 1104–1109Johnson PR, Thomas RH (1975) The maintenance of duplicate databases. RFC 677, Network Working Group, Internet Engineering Task ForceKephart JO, Chess DM (2003) The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Comput 36(1):41–50Kiviti A, Laor D, Costa G, Enberg P, Har’El N, Marti D, Zolotarov V (2014) OSv—Optimizing the operating system for virtual machines. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC), Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 61–72Knauth T, Fetzer C (2011) Scaling non-elastic applications using virtual machines. In: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Washington, DC, USA, pp 468–475Knauth T, Fetzer C (2014) DreamServer: truly on-demand cloud services. In: International Conference on Systems and Storage (SYSTOR), Haifa, Israel, pp 1–11Kramer J, Magee J (1990) The evolving philosophers problem: dynamic change management. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 16(11):1293–1306Lakshman A, Malik P (2010) Cassandra: a decentralized structured storage system. Oper Syst Rev 44(2):35–40Lang W, Shankar S, Patel JM, Kalhan A (2014) Towards multi-tenant performance SLOs. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 26(6):1447–1463Langner F, Andrzejak A (2013) Detecting software aging in a cloud computing framework by comparing development versions. In: IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM), Ghent, Belgium, pp 896–899Lazowska ED, Zahorjan J, Graham GS, Sevcik KC (1984) Quantitative system performance. Computer system analysis using queueing network models. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverLeitner P, Michlmayr A, Rosenberg F, Dustdar S (2010) Monitoring, prediction and prevention of SLA violations in composite services. In: IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), Florida, USA, Miami, pp 369–376Li W (2011) Evaluating the impacts of dynamic reconfiguration on the QoS of running systems. J Syst Softw 84(12):2123–2138Lim HC, Babu S, Chase JS, Parekh SS (2009) Automated control in cloud computing: challenges and opportunities. In: 1st ACM Workshop Automated Control Datacenters Clouds (ACDC), Barcelona, Spain, pp 13–18Liu J, Zhou J, Buyya R (2015) Software rejuvenation based fault tolerance scheme for cloud applications. In: 8th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), New York City, NY, USA, pp 1115–1118Lorido-Botran T, Miguel-Alonso J, Lozano JA (2014) A review of auto-scaling techniques for elastic applications in cloud environments. J Grid Comput 12(4):559–592Massie M, Li B, Nicholes B, Vuksan V, Alexander R, Buchbinder J, Costa F, Dean A, Josephsen D, Phaal P, Pocock D (2012) Monitoring with Ganglia. O’Reilly Media, Tracking Dynamic Host and Application Metrics at Scale. ISBN 978-1-4493-2970-9Matias R Jr, Andrzejak A, Machida F, Elias D, Trivedi KS (2014) A systematic differential analysis for fast and robust detection of software aging. In: 33rd IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). Nara, Japan, pp 311–320Medina V, García JM (2014) A survey of migration mechanisms of virtual machines. ACM Comput Surv 46(3):30Mell P, Grance T (2011) The NIST definition of cloud computing. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 800-145Menascé DA, Bennani MN (2006) Autonomic virtualized environments. In: International Conference on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems (ICAS), Silicon Valley, California, USA, p 28Menascé DA, Ngo P (2009) Understanding cloud computing: Experimentation and capacity planning. In: 35th International Computer Measurement Group Conference, Dallas, TX, USAMenascé DA, Ruan H, Gomaa H (2007) QoS management in service-oriented architectures. Perform Eval 64(7–8):646–663Miedes E, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2010) Dynamic switching of total-order broadcast protocols. In: International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp 457–463Mohamed M (2014) Generic monitoring and reconfiguration for service-based applications in the cloud. PhD thesis, Université d’Evry-Val d’Essonne, FranceMohamed M, Amziani M, Belaïd D, Tata S, Melliti T (2015) An autonomic approach to manage elasticity of business processes in the cloud. Future Gener Comp Sys 50(C):49–61Mohd Yusoh ZI (2013) Composite SaaS resource management in cloud computing using evolutionary computation. PhD thesis, Sc Eng Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, AustraliaMontero RS, Moreno-Vozmediano R, Llorente IM (2011) An elasticity model for high throughput computing clusters. J Parallel Distrib Comput 71(6):750–757Morabito R, Kjällman J, Komu M (2015) Hypervisors vs. lightweight virtualization: a performance comparison. In: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), Tempe, AZ, USA, pp 386–393Najjar A, Serpaggi X, Gravier C, Boissier O (2014) Survey of elasticity management solutions in cloud computing. In: Mahmood Z (ed) Continued rise of the cloud: advances and trends in cloud computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–263Naskos A, Gounaris A, Sioutas S (2015) Cloud elasticity: a survey. In: 1st International Workshop on Algorithmic Aspects of Cloud Computing (ALGOCLOUD), Patras, Greece, pp 151–167Neamtiu I, Dumitras T (2011) Cloud software upgrades: challenges and opportunities. In: IEEE International Workshop on the Maintenance and Evolution of Service-Oriented and Cloud-Based Systems (MESOCA), Williamsburg, VA, USA, pp 1–10Neuman BC (1994) Scale in distributed systems. In: Singhal M, Casavant TL (eds) Readings in Distributed computing systems. IEEE-CS Press, Los Alamitos, pp 463–489Padala P, Shin KG, Zhu X, Uysal M, Wang Z, Singhal S, Merchant A, Salem K (2007) Adaptive control of virtualized resources in utility computing environments. In: EuroSys Conference Lisbon, Portugal, pp 289–302Parnas DL (1994) Software aging. In: 6th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Sorrento, Italy, pp 279–287Parzen E (1960) A survey on time series analysis. Tech. rep., n. 37, Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USAPascual-Miret L, González de Mendívil JR, Bernabéu-Aubán JM, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2015) Widening CAP consistency. Tech. rep., IUMTI-SIDI-2015/003, Univ. Politècnica de València, Valencia, SpainPopek GJ, Goldberg RP (1974) Formal requirements for virtualizable third generation architectures. Commun ACM 17(7):412–421Potter S, Nieh J (2005) AutoPod: Unscheduled system updates with zero data loss. In: 2nd International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC), Seattle, WA, USA, pp 367–368Rajagopalan S (2014) System support for elasticity and high availability. PhD thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CanadaReinecke P, Wolter K, van Moorsel APA (2010) Evaluating the adaptivity of computing systems. Perform Eval 67(8):676–693Rolia JA, Sevcik KC (1995) The method of layers. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 21(8):689–700Roy N, Dubey A, Gokhale AS (2011) Efficient autoscaling in the cloud using predictive models for workload forecasting. In: 4th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Washington, DC, USA, pp 500–507Ruiz-Fuertes MI, Muñoz-Escoí FD (2009) Performance evaluation of a metaprotocol for database replication adaptability. In: 28th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), Niagara Falls, New York, USA, pp 32–38Saito Y, Shapiro M (2005) Optimistic replication. ACM Comput Surv 37(1):42–81Seifzadeh H, Abolhassani H, Moshkenani MS (2013) A survey of dynamic software updating. J Softw Evol Process 25(5):535–568Sharma U, Shenoy PJ, Sahu S, Shaikh A (2011) A cost-aware elasticity provisioning system for the cloud. In: International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, pp 559–570Shen M, Kshemkalyani AD, Hsu TY (2015) Causal consistency for geo-replicated cloud storage under partial replication. In: International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) Workshop, Hyderabad, India, pp 509–518Shen Z, Subbiah S, Gu X, Wilkes J (2011) CloudScale: elastic resource scaling for multi-tenant cloud systems. In: ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC), Cascais, Portugal, p 5Simoes R, Kamienski CA (2014) Elasticity management in private and hybrid clouds. In: 7th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), Anchorage, AK, USA, pp 793–800Singh S, Chana I (2015) QoS-aware autonomic resource management in cloud computing: a systematic review. ACM Comput Surv 48(3):42:1–42:46Smith CU (1980) The prediction and evaluation of the performance of software from extended design specifications. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin, USASmith CU, Williams LG (2003) Software performance engineering. In: Lavagno L, Martin G, Selic B (eds) UML for real. Design of embedded real-time systems, chap 16. Springer, Berlin, pp 343–365Solarski M (2004) Dynamic upgrade of distributed software components. PhD thesis, Fakultät IV Elektronik und Informatik, Technischen Universität Berlin, Berlin, GermanySoltesz S, Pötzl H, Fiuczynski ME, Bavier AC, Peterson LL (2007) Container-based operating system virtualization: a scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors. In: European Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 275–287Soules CAN, Appavoo J, Hui K, Wisniewski RW, Silva DD, Ganger GR, Krieger O, Stumm M, Auslander MA, Ostrowski M, Rosenburg BS, Xenidis J (2003) System support for online reconfiguration. In: USENIX Annual Technical Conference. San Antonio, Texas, USA, pp 141–154Sridharan S (2012) A performance comparison of hypervisors for cloud computing. Master Thesis (paper 269), School of Computing, University of North Florida, USAStonebraker M (1986) The case for shared nothing. IEEE Database Eng Bull 9(1):4–9Sun D, Guimarans D, Fekete A, Gramoli V, Zhu L (2015) Multi-objective optimisation of rolling upgrade allowing for failures in clouds. In: 34th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS). Montreal, QC, Canada, pp 68–73Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Reinforcement learning: an introduction. The MIT Press, CambridgeToosi AN, Calheiros RN, Buyya R (2014) Interconnected cloud computing environments: challenges, taxonomy, and survey. ACM Comput Surv 47(1):7:1–7:47Vaquero González LM, Rodero-Merino L, Cáceres J, Lindner MA (2009) A break in the clouds: towards a cloud definition. Comput Commun Rev 39(1):50–55Varrette S, Guzek M, Plugaru V, Besseron X, Bouvry P (2013) HPC performance and energy-efficiency of Xen, KVM and VMware hypervisors. In: 25th International Symposium on Computer Architecture and High Performance Computing (SBAC-PAD). Porto de Galinhas, Pernambuco, Brazil, pp 89–96Vasic N, Novakovic DM, Miucin S, Kostic D, Bianchini R (2012) DejaVu: accelerating resource allocation in virtualized environments. In: 17th nternational Conference on Architectural Support for Programing Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), London, UK, pp 423–436Vaughan-Nichols SJ (2006) New approach to virtualization is a lightweight. IEEE Comput 39(11):12–14Vogels W (2009) Eventually consistent. Commun ACM 52(1):40–44Wada H, Suzuki J, Yamano Y, Oba K (2011) Evolutionary deployment optimization for service-oriented clouds. Softw Pract Exp 41(5):469–493Whitaker A, Cox RS, Shaw M, Gribble SD (2005) Rethinking the design of virtual machine monitors. IEEE Comput 38(5):57–62Wishart DMG (1969) A survey of control theory. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G 132(3):293–319Yataghene L, Amziani M, Ioualalen M, Tata S (2014) A queuing model for business processes elasticity evaluation. In: International Workshop on Advanced Information Systems for Enterprises (IWAISE), Tunis, Tunisia, pp 22–28Zawirski M, Preguiça N, Duarte S, Bieniusa A, Balegas V, Shapiro M (2015) Write fast, read in th

Energy-aware Load Balancing Policies for the Cloud Ecosystem

The energy consumption of computer and communication systems does not scale linearly with the workload. A system uses a significant amount of energy even when idle or lightly loaded. A widely reported solution to resource management in large data centers is to concentrate the load on a subset of servers and, whenever possible, switch the rest of the servers to one of the possible sleep states. We propose a reformulation of the traditional concept of load balancing aiming to optimize the energy consumption of a large-scale system: {\it distribute the workload evenly to the smallest set of servers operating at an optimal energy level, while observing QoS constraints, such as the response time.} Our model applies to clustered systems; the model also requires that the demand for system resources to increase at a bounded rate in each reallocation interval. In this paper we report the VM migration costs for application scaling.Comment: 10 Page