Multiobjective virtual machine placement mechanisms using nature‐inspired metaheuristic algorithms in cloud environments: A comprehensive review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Cloud computing introduced a new paradigm in IT industry by providing on‐demand, elastic, ubiquitous computing resources for users. In a virtualized cloud data center, there are a large number of physical machines (PMs) hosting different types of virtual machines (VMs). Unfortunately, the cloud data centers do not fully utilize their computing resources and cause a considerable amount of energy waste that has a great operational cost and dramatic impact on the environment. Server consolidation is one of the techniques that provide efficient use of physical resources by reducing the number of active servers. Since VM placement plays an important role in server consolidation, one of the main challenges in cloud data centers is an efficient mapping of VMs to PMs. Multiobjective VM placement is generating considerable interest among researchers and academia. This paper aims to represent a detailed review of the recent state‐of‐the‐art multiobjective VM placement mechanisms using nature‐inspired metaheuristic algorithms in cloud environments. Also, it gives special attention to the parameters and approaches used for placing VMs into PMs. In the end, we will discuss and explore further works that can be done in this area of research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it