Effective Utilization of Resources Through Optimal Allocation and Opportunistic Migration of Virtual Machines in Cloud Environment

Effective Utilization of Resources Through Optimal Allocation and Opportunistic Migration of Virtual Machines in Cloud Environment

Priyanka H., Mary Cherian
Copyright: © 2021 |Pages: 20
DOI: 10.4018/IJCAC.2021070105
OnDemand:
(Individual Articles)
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

Cloud computing has become more prominent, and it is used in large data centers. Distribution of well-organized resources (bandwidth, CPU, and memory) is the major problem in the data centers. The genetically enhanced shuffling frog leaping algorithm (GESFLA) framework is proposed to select the optimal virtual machines to schedule the tasks and allocate them in physical machines (PMs). The proposed GESFLA-based resource allocation technique is useful in minimizing the wastage of resource usage and also minimizes the power consumption of the data center. The proposed GESFL algorithm is compared with task-based particle swarm optimization (TBPSO) for efficiency. The experimental results show the excellence of GESFLA over TBPSO in terms of resource usage ratio, migration time, and total execution time. The proposed GESFLA framework reduces the energy consumption of data center up to 79%, migration time by 67%, and CPU utilization is improved by 9% for Planet Lab workload traces. For the random workload, the execution time is minimized by 71%, transfer time is reduced up to 99%, and the CPU consumption is improved by 17% when compared to TBPSO.
Article Preview
Top

Fahimeh Ramezani et al., 2015 proposed the TBPSO approach builds a multi-objective optimization framework for the migration of tasks. The tasks are transferred from overloaded VMs to reduce task execution time and task transfer time by implementing the “Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm”. It develops a multi-objective task scheduling optimization framework to transfer tasks from overloaded VMs which reduces both task execution time and transfer time and builds up a “Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO)” based algorithm to resolve the configuration model. This collects data on the Task-Based blackboard as incoming data to the task migration framework. It helps to find a suitable VM host for the tasks focused on the VM power ratio. This determines a task size based on the combination of VM resources and the total number of assignments for each VM. The overloaded VMs and the candidate VMs list are considered for migrating the task. It also uses the PSO algorithm to solve the problem of finding the target VM for each migration task. The research was done on PSO algorithm by H. Xu et.al, 2016 and also, by Li-Der Chou et.al, 2018. Through PSO it measures the fitness for candidate VM based on the transfer time and the optimum allocation of tasks. Transfer time relies on VM bandwidth and task file size. The number of optical task assignments depends on the number of tasks allocated from PSO solution and the task limit.

2.1. Drawbacks

  • 1.

    It is costly and time-consuming.

  • 2.

    It considers only the homogeneous VMs.

  • 3.

    It migrates VMs from overloaded hosts alone, so that it eliminates the power consumption of overloaded hosts.

The Load balancing in cloud computing using Ant colony optimization was discussed by Wen et al. 2016. The load balancing with VM technology in cloud computing targets at assigning VMs to appropriate servers and also managing the usage of resources across all the servers. Dynamic input demands are requested in infrastructure-as-a-service environment, the different types of tasks that operate on them are responsible for creating VMs. To reduce the computation time and minimize virtual machine migration, a novel approach is proposed known as GESFLA.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 13: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2022): 2 Released, 2 Forthcoming
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2011)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing