MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886164482 · doi:10.1109/tcc.2018.2865737

An SLA-Aware Cloud Coalition Formation Approach for Virtualized Networks

2018· article· en· W2886164482 on OpenAlexafffund
Souad Hadjres, Nadjia Kara, May El Barachi, Fatna Belqasmi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersZayed UniversityConcordia University
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceService-level agreementService providerReputationWorkloadComputer securityProfit (economics)Distributed computingService (business)BusinessOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main challenges faced by cloud providers is the uncertainty in their workload, resulting from the high variability and the dynamic nature of clients' demands. The inability to meet those demands during peak times can lead to high service rejection rates, experienced delays, and consequently profit and reputation losses. The concept of cloud federation has been proposed as a way to address this challenge, by enabling a group of cloud providers to collaborate by dynamically combining their resources as needed, to satisfy received requests. Existing cloud federation approaches fail to consider clients' SLA requirements during the coalition formation process or provide a self-healing mechanism to deal with unexpected resources' shortage during operation. Furthermore, the state of the art approaches suffer from performance issues, such as high execution times, unstable performance, and lack of convergence to a solution in complex scenarios (e.g., requests with mixed, independent types of VMs). This paper proposes a novel social gaming based approach for coalition formation in the cloud that finds the best coalition of cloud providers to answer requests, while satisfying the clients' SLA requirements. The proposed algorithm, dubbed SLA Aware Cloud Coalition Formation algorithm (S-ACCF), leverages Irving's roommate algorithm to form a stable coalition of cloud providers, with a rapid execution time. The S-ACCF algorithm is designed to maximize the coalition's profit, while minimizing the number of participants in the coalition as well as the penalty incurred by providers who fail to offer all or some of the promised resources using a self-healing process. The S-ACCF algorithm was extensively tested using a variety of scenarios, and its performance was compared to two state of the art approaches: 1) the Optimal Cloud Federation Mechanism (OCFM) that relies on an exhaustive search of all possible solutions to find the best coalition; and 2) the Cloud Federation Formation Mechanism (CFFM) that relies on an iterative split-and-merge approach to find the best coalition. While the optimal approach (OCFM) always finds the best coalition leading to the highest collective profit, it has an exponential time complexity, thus leading to very large execution times. On the other hand, the split-and-merge approach (CFFM), which relies on random selection of sub-groups for coalition formation, suffers from instability (different results in repeated runs), high and variable execution time, and a noticeable requests' rejection rate that changes between runs. The test results show that the S-ACCF algorithm addresses the limitations of the OCFM and the CFFM algorithms, and outperforms the optimal and split-and-merge approaches in terms of execution time, individual provider payoff, and the number of providers per coalition. Furthermore, it yields higher stability and zero rejection rate, when compared to the split-and-merge approach. Indeed, our proposed approach yields an execution time that is 12 to 25 times faster than the optimal and split-and-merge approaches, which is a major advantage for real-time applications. Moreover, when compared to the two other approaches, our S-ACCF algorithm always finds the smallest coalition possible satisfying the client requirements, thus leading to the highest individual payoff for providers and lower administration overhead. Finally, unlike the split-and-merge approach, our algorithm shows a stable performance, and converges towards the optimal solution in simple and complex scenarios, thus making it suitable for production environments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Cloud ComputingSame topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207