Real-time agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments

A Cloud Computing system must readjust its resources by taking into account the demand for its services. This raises the need for designing protocols that provide the individual components of the Cloud architecture with the ability to self-adapt and to reach agreements in order to deal with changes in the services demand. Furthermore, if the Cloud provider has signed a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the clients of the services that it offers, the appropriate agreement mechanism has to ensure the provision of the service contracted within a specified time. This paper introduces real-time mechanisms for the agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments. On the one hand, it presents a negotiation protocol inspired by the standard WSAgreement used in web services to manage the interactions between the client and the Cloud provider to agree the terms of the SLA of a service. On the other hand, it proposes the application of a real-time argumentation framework for redistributing resources and ensuring the fulfilment of these SLAs during peaks in the service demand.This work is supported by the Spanish government Grants CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, TIN2011-27652-C03-01, TIN2012-36586-C03-01 and TIN2012-36586-C03-03.De La Prieta, F.; Heras Barberá, SM.; Palanca Cámara, J.; Rodríguez, S.; Bajo, J.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). Real-time agreement and fulfilment of SLAs in Cloud Computing environments. AI Communications. 1-24. doi:10.3233/AIC-140626S124[1]V. Aleven and K.D. Ashley, Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment, in: Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED-97, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 39, IOS Press, 1997, pp. 87–94.[2]M. Alhamad, W. Perth, T. Dillon and E. Chang, Conceptual SLA framework for cloud computing, in: 4th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST), IEEE Press, 2010, pp. 606–610.Armbrust, M., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A. D., … Rabkin, A. (2010). A view of cloud computing. Communications of the ACM, 53(4), 50. doi:10.1145/1721654.1721672Ashley, K. D. (1991). Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6), 753-796. doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90011-u[6]P. Barham, B. Dragovic, K. Fraser, S. Hand, T. Harris, A. Ho, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt and A. Warfield, Xen and the art of virtualization, in: 9th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP-03), ACM Press, 2003, pp. 164–177.Beloglazov, A., Abawajy, J., & Buyya, R. (2012). Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for Cloud computing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 28(5), 755-768. doi:10.1016/j.future.2011.04.017[8]A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya, Energy efficient allocation of virtual machines in cloud data centers, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 577–578.[9]A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya, Energy efficient resource management in virtualized cloud data centers, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 826–831.Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97-143. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00108-5[11]T.J. Bench-Capon, Specification and implementation of Toulmin dialogue game, in: International Conferences on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, JURIX-98, Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, 1998, pp. 5–20.[12]R. Buyya, R. Ranjan and R.N. Calheiros, Intercloud: Utility-oriented federation of cloud computing environments for scaling of application services, in: 10th International Conference on Algorithms and Architectures for Parallel Processing – Volume Part I, ICA3PP’10, Springer-Verlag, 2010, pp. 13–31.[13]R. Buyya, C.S. Yeo and S. Venugopal, Market-oriented cloud computing: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering it services as computing utilities, in: High Performance Computing and Communications, 2008. HPCC’08. 10th IEEE International Conference, September 2008, IEEE, 2008, pp. 5–13.Chen, C., Li, S. S., Chen, B., & Wen, D. (2011). Agent Recommendation for Agent-Based Urban-Transportation Systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(6), 77-81. doi:10.1109/mis.2011.94[15]Y.Y. Cheng, M. Low, S. Zhou, W. Cai and C.S. Choo, Evolving agent-based simulations in the clouds, in: 3rd International Workshop on Advanced Computational Intelligence (IWACI), 2010, pp. 244–249.[16]F. Dignum and H. Weigand, Communication and Deontic Logic, in: Information Systems – Correctness and Reusability. Selected Papers from the IS-CORE Workshop, R. Wieringa and R. Feenstra, eds, World Scientific Publishing Co., 1995, pp. 242–260.Erdogmus, H. (2009). Cloud Computing: Does Nirvana Hide behind the Nebula? IEEE Software, 26(2), 4-6. doi:10.1109/ms.2009.31[19]J.O. Fitó, I. Goiri and J. Guitart, SLA-driven elastic cloud hosting provider, in: 18th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP), IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 111–118.Fuentes-Fernández, R., Hassan, S., Pavón, J., Galán, J. M., & López-Paredes, A. (2012). Metamodels for role-driven agent-based modelling. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18(1), 91-112. doi:10.1007/s10588-012-9110-5Heras, S., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2009). Challenges for a CBR framework for argumentation in open MAS. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 24(4), 327-352. doi:10.1017/s0269888909990178Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2013). Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 82-108. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2012.06.005[24]M. Jensen, J. Schwenk, N. Gruschka and L. Iacono, On technical security issues in cloud computing, in: IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing, IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 109–116.Kakas, A., Maudet, N., & Moraitis, P. (2005). Modular Representation of Agent Interaction Rules through Argumentation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(2), 189-206. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-2176-4[26]M.J. Kim, H.G. Yoon and H.K. Lee, MAV: An intelligent Multi-agent model based on Cloud computing for resource virtualization, in: Computers, Networks, Systems, and Industrial Engineering, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 365, Springer, 2011, pp. 99–111.Kraus, S., Sycara, K., & Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104(1-2), 1-69. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(98)00078-2[28]W.-Y. Lin, G.-Y. Lin and H.-Y. Wei, Dynamic auction mechanism for cloud resource allocation, in: 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, CCGRID’10, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 2010, pp. 591–592.[29]S. Liu, G. Quan and S. Ren, On-line scheduling of real-time services for cloud computing, in: 6th World Congress on Services, SERVICES’10, IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 459–464.Navarro, M., Heras, S., Botti, V., & Julián, V. (2013). Towards real-time agreements. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3906-3917. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.087Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2011). An argumentation framework for learning, information exchange, and joint-deliberation in multi-agent systems1. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 7(2-3), 95-108. doi:10.3233/mgs-2011-0169Palanca, J., Navarro, M., García-Fornes, A., & Julian, V. (2013). Deadline prediction scheduling based on benefits. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(1), 61-73. doi:10.1016/j.future.2012.05.007[33]C. Pautasso, O. Zimmermann and F. Leymann, Restful web services vs. “big”’ web services: making the right architectural decision, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW’08, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2008, pp. 805–814.[34]J. Peng, X. Zhang, Z. Lei, B. Zhang, W. Zhang and Q. Li, Comparison of several cloud computing platforms, in: 2nd International Symposium on Information Science and Engineering, ISISE’09, IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 23–27.Prakken, H., & Sartor, G. (1998). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6(2/4), 231-287. doi:10.1023/a:1008278309945[36]I. Rahwan and G. Simari, eds, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, 2009.Ross, J. W., & Westerman, G. (2004). Preparing for utility computing: The role of IT architecture and relationship management. IBM Systems Journal, 43(1), 5-19. doi:10.1147/sj.431.0005Schaffer, H. E. (2009). X as a Service, Cloud Computing, and the Need for Good Judgment. IT Professional, 11(5), 4-5. doi:10.1109/mitp.2009.112[39]K.M. Sim, Agent-based cloud commerce, in: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE Press, 2009, pp. 717–721.Soh, L.-K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A Real-Time Negotiation Model and A Multi-Agent Sensor Network Implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215-271. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-0539-5Talia, D. (2012). Clouds Meet Agents: Toward Intelligent Cloud Services. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(2), 78-81. doi:10.1109/mic.2012.28Tolchinsky, P., Modgil, S., Atkinson, K., McBurney, P., & Cortés, U. (2011). Deliberation dialogues for reasoning about safety critical actions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 25(2), 209-259. doi:10.1007/s10458-011-9174-5[44]A. Toniolo, T. Norman and K. Sycara, An empirical study of argumentation schemes in deliberative dialogue, in: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI-12, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 242, IOS Press, 2012, pp. 756–761.[45]W.-T. Tsai, Q. Shao, X. Sun and J. Elston, Real-time service-oriented cloud computing, in: IEEE 6th World Congress on Services, SERVICES’10, IEEE Press, 2010, pp. 473–478.[46]D. Walton, C. Reed and F. Macagno, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, 2008.[47]L. Wang, J. Tao, M. Kunze, A. Castellanos, D. Kramer and W. Karl, Scientific cloud computing: Early definition and experience, in: 10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC-08), IEEE Press, 2008, pp. 825–830.[48]Y.O. Yazir, C. Matthews, R. Farahbod, S. Neville, A. Guitouni, S. Ganti and Y. Coady, Dynamic resource allocation in computing clouds using distributed multiple criteria decision analysis, in: IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), IEEE Computer Society, 2010, pp. 91–98.[49]Y. Yu, S. Ren, N. Chen and X. Wang, Profit and penalty aware (pp-aware) scheduling for tasks with variable task execution time, in: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC’10, ACM, 2010, pp. 334–339

Relationship and Cloud Factors Affecting Government Confidence in the Public Cloud

Despite the advantages of the public cloud governments are still reluctant to deploy sensitive data and critical systems into the public cloud. The advantages of scalability and cost are attractive for governments and the current trend is for governments to consider placing more of their data and systems in the public cloud towards a more comprehensive government cloud solution. However, there are major concerns related to the public cloud that are especially significant to governments which are cause of reluctance in terms of public cloud adoption. Such concerns include security and privacy, governance, compliance, and performance. If these concerns are answered, governments will perceive less risk and be more confident to deploy to the public cloud. Besides the obvious technical solutions, which include improving security, another solution is an effective cloud service provider (CSP) - government relationship. Towards the development of such a solution the study contributes a novel approach to researching the CSP-government relationship in order to reveal, in depth and comprehensively, the relevant relationship and associated cloud issues, often neglected in previous research. Specifically, the developed research design was achieved through a mixed methods approach using a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with senior IT professionals in various government ministries and departments in Saudi Arabia. The findings not only offer a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the relationship, but also reveal specific relationship and cloud issues as problems towards the development of a solution to increase government confidence in the public cloud. Specifically, it was found that government were more concerned about areas of the cloud that are more relevant to government and there was often an associate lack of trust or perception of risk for these areas. Moreover, it was found that in relation to more specific areas of the cloud there was increasing concern in terms of trust and risk, the ability to negotiate and collaborate, and the perception of reputation. Based on these findings, which also revealed the various interplays between relationship factors as a novel contribution, the study offers recommendations to CSPs on how they may improve their relationship with the government. This is to be achieved through resolving relationship issues and associated cloud concerns within the relationship context towards improving government confidence in the public cloud. The findings also have implications for other parties which include governments considering the public cloud and those engaged in academic research in the area of government reluctance to use the public cloud