Advertisement

Dynamic Consolidation Based on Kth-Order Markov Model for Virtual Machines

  • Na JiangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)

Abstract

The rapid development of cloud computing technology has led to a high level of energy consumption. The central processing unit (CPU) of the data center and other resources often use less than half the rate; therefore, if the work of the virtual machine is focused on part of the server, and the idle server switches to low power mode, the power consumption of the data center can be greatly reduced. Traditional research into virtual machine consolidation is mainly based on the high load threshold of the current host load setting or periodically migrates, and the present study made predictions based on the timing of problems of lower prediction accuracy faced. To solve these problems, we consider the impact of the multi-order Markov model and the CPU state at different times, and propose a new hybrid sequence K Markov model for the next period of time of the host CPU load forecasting. Owing to the large-scale data experiment on the CloudSim simulation platform, the host load forecasting method proposed in this paper is compared with the traditional load detection method to verify that the proposed model has a large reduction in the number of virtual machine migrations and amount of data center energy consumption, and the violation of the service level agreement (SLA) is also at an acceptable level.

Keywords

Cloud computing Dynamic virtual machine integration Hybrid Markov model 

References

  1. 1.
    Lu, H., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Chen, M., Serikawa, S., & Kim, H. (2017). Underwater optical image processing: A comprehensive review. Mobile Networks and Applications. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-017-0863-4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li, Y., Lu, H., Li, J., Li, X., Li, Y., & Serikawa, S. (2016). Underwater image de-scattering and classification by deep neural network. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 54, 68–77.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jain, R., & Paul, S. (2013). Network virtualization and software defined networking for cloud computing: A survey. IEEE Communications Magazine,51(11), 24–31.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huimin, L. U., Yujie, L. I., Nakashima, S., & Serikawa, S. (2016). Turbidity underwater image restoration using spectral properties and light compensation. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 99(1), 219–227.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lu, H., Li, Y., Zhang, L., & Serikawa, S. (2015). Contrast enhancement for images in turbid water. Journal of The Optical Society of America A-optics Image Science and Vision, 32(5), 886–893.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, M., Shi, X., Zhang, Y., Wu, D., & Guizani, M. (2017). Deep features learning for medical image analysis with convolutional autoencoder neural network. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, PP(99), 1–1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, D., Shang, Y., & Chen, C. (2014). Software defined green data center network with exclusive routing. In INFOCOM, 2014 Proceedings IEEE (pp. 1743–1751). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, Y., & Min, C. (2016). Cloud based 5G wireless networks. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, M., Zhang, Y., Hu, L., Taleb, T., & Sheng, Z. (2015). Cloud-based wireless network: Virtualized, reconfigurable, smart wireless network to enable 5G technologies. Mobile Networks and Applications, 20(6), 704–712 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-015-0590-7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo, C., Yuan, L., Xiang, D., Dang, Y., Huang, R., Maltz, D., et al. (2015). Pingmesh: A large-scale system for data center network latency measurement and analysis. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 45(4), 139–152.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, Q., Ma, Y., Alhussein, M., Zhang, Y., & Peng, L. (2016). Green data center with IoT sensing and cloud-assisted smart temperature control system. Computer Networks, 101, 104–112.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang, Y., Qiu, M., Tsai, C., Hassan, M. M., & A. Alamri. (2017). Health-CPS: Healthcare cyber-physical system assisted by cloud and big data. IEEE Systems Journal, 11(1), 88–95.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calheiros, R. N., Ranjan, R., Beloglazov, A., De Rose, C. A., & Buyya, R. (2011). CloudSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Software: Practice and Experience, 41(1), 23–50.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Ayyoub, M., Jararweh, Y., Daraghmeh, M., & Althebyan, Q. (2015). Multi-agent based dynamic resource provisioning and monitoring for cloud computing systems infrastructure. Cluster Computing, 18(2), 919–932.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beloglazov, A., & Buyya, R. (2013). Managing overloaded hosts for dynamic consolidation of virtual machines in cloud data centers under quality of service constraints. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 24(7), 1366–1379.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahmad, R. W., Gani, A., Hamid, S. H. A., Shiraz, M., Yousafzai, A., & Xia, F. (2015). A survey on virtual machine migration and server consolidation frameworks for cloud data centers. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 52, 11–25.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wood, T., Shenoy, P. J., Venkataramani, A., & Yousif, M. S. (2007). Black-box and gray-box strategies for virtual machine migration. In NSDI’07 Proceedings of the 4th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design & Implementation (Vol. 7, pp. 17–17). Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhu, X., Young, D., Watson, B. J., Wang, Z., Rolia, J., Singhal, S., et al. (2008). 1000 islands: Integrated capacity and workload management for the next generation data center. In International Conference on Autonomic Computing, 2008. ICAC’08 (pp. 172–181). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gmach, D., Rolia, J., Cherkasova, L., Belrose, G., Turicchi, T., & Kemper, A. (2008). An integrated approach to resource pool management: Policies, efficiency and quality metrics. In IEEE International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks With FTCS and DCC, 2008. DSN 2008 (pp. 326–335). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gmach, D., Rolia, J., Cherkasova, L., & Kemper, A. (2009). Resource pool management: Reactive versus proactive or let’s be friends. Computer Networks, 53(17), 2905–2922.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Verma, A., Dasgupta, G., Nayak, T. K., De, P., & Kothari, R. (2009). Server workload analysis for power minimization using consolidation. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference (pp. 28–28). Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weng, C., Li, M., Wang, Z., & Lu, X. (2009). Automatic performance tuning for the virtualized cluster system. In 29th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2009. ICDCS’09 (pp. 183–190). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bobroff, N., Kochut, A., & Beaty, K. (2007). Dynamic placement of virtual machines for managing SLA violations. In 10th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, 2007. IM’07 (pp. 119–128). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang, Q., Shuang, K., Xu, P., Li, J., Liu, X., & Su, S. (2014). Prediction-based dynamic resource scheduling for virtualized cloud systems. Journal of Networks, 9(2), 375–383.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Park, K., & Pai, V. S. (2006). CoMon: A mostly-scalable monitoring system for planetlab. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 40(1), 65–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zhaotong UniversityZhaotongChina

Personalised recommendations