4.6 Article

A YARN-based Energy-Aware Scheduling Method for Big Data Applications under Deadline Constraints

期刊

JOURNAL OF GRID COMPUTING
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10723-022-09627-w

关键词

Hadoop; Scheduling; Deadline; Energy efficiency; Metaheuristic; Moth-Flame

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes an energy-efficient deadline-aware model for scheduling in Hadoop. The algorithm, based on the Moth-Flame Optimization algorithm, minimizes energy consumption and executes applications within a soft deadline. Experimental results demonstrate that this method outperforms other scheduling algorithms.
Hadoop is a distributed framework for processing big data. One of the critical parts of Hadoop is YARN, which carries out scheduling and resource management. A scheduling algorithm should consider multiple objectives. However, YARN schedulers do not consider the Service Level Agreement (SLA) and the energy-related issues. The present paper proposes an energy-efficient deadline-aware model for the scheduling problem. The scheduling issue is an NP-hard problem regarding the deadline of applications and reducing energy. Hence, an Energy-efficient Deadline-aware Scheduling Algorithm based on the Moth-Flame Optimization algorithm (EDSA-MFO) is suggested to minimize the energy consumption and execute the application within a given soft deadline. Moreover, the earliest deadline first-based (EDF-based) heuristic approach is proposed to decode a moth into a scheduling solution. The algorithm is implemented for both static and dynamic scheduling. To evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm, extensive simulations are conducted. The outcomes demonstrated that the suggested method could find near-optimal scheduling. It outperforms the YARN default FIFO scheduler, EDF, the energy-aware greedy algorithm (EAGA), and the deadline-aware energy-efficient MapReduce scheduling algorithm for YARN (EMRSAY) in total cluster energy consumption and meeting job deadline.

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

4.6
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