4.5 Article

Online optimization for scheduling preemptable tasks on IaaS cloud systems

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpdc.2012.02.002

关键词

Cloud computing; Online scheduling; Feedback; Preemptable scheduling

资金

  1. University of Kentucky
  2. NSFC [61071061, 61170077, 61070002]
  3. SZ-HK [ZYB200907060012A]
  4. NSF [GD: 10351806001000000, CNS-0969013, CNS-0917021, CNS-1018108, CNS-0915762, CCF-08452578, CNS-0917137, CNS-0757778, CCF-0742187, CNS-0831502, CNS-0855251, OCI-0753305, DUE-0837341, DUE-0830831]
  5. SZ [JC200903120046A]
  6. Auburn Start Up grant
  7. Intel [2005-04-070]
  8. [MOE-INTEL-10-02]
  9. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  10. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [0969013, 1018108, 0917137] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  11. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  12. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations [0845257] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud computing, computational resources are provided to remote users in the form of leases. For a cloud user, he/she can request multiple cloud services simultaneously. In this case, parallel processing in the cloud system can improve the performance. When applying parallel processing in cloud computing, it is necessary to implement a mechanism to allocate resource and schedule the execution order of tasks. Furthermore, a resource optimization mechanism with preemptable task execution can increase the utilization of clouds. In this paper, we propose two online dynamic resource allocation algorithms for the IaaS cloud system with preemptable tasks. Our algorithms adjust the resource allocation dynamically based on the updated information of the actual task executions. And the experimental results show that our algorithms can significantly improve the performance in the situation where resource contention is fierce. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据