Dynamic scheduling strategy

Previous studies on resource consolidation strategies are divided into three main categories: static strategies [22–23], dynamic scheduling [24–26] and decision-making on the prediction [27–29]. The traditional static approach can be implemented to meet a varying demand, but it generates more overheads Halder et al. [30] presented a static consolidating algorithm that considered CPU utilization and SLA violations. Tiago et al. [31] proposed an LP and heuristics method to complete the mapping from the VMs to the host, which would reduce the number of migrations with the minimum penalty. The disadvantage of the static consolidation strategies is that they cause resource wastage to meet sudden load demands. An example of a dynamic scheduling strategy is the depending on the prediction technique. Cloudscale [32] achieved adaptive resource allocation with lower resource and energy costs by integrating VM resources with dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS) to save energy. Press [33] proposed the fine-grained mechanism, which reduces the resource wastage and SLO violations. However, the predictive technique is complex, and it is difficult to obtain accurate results with this technique. In dynamic scheduling strategies, the issue to be solved is when and where to migrate. Lovász et al. [34] presented a dynamic strategy that uses the greedy and modified first-fit algorithm and considers the power and response time as the performance metrics. Seyed et al. [35] proposed an adaptive threshold-based algorithm to detect overloaded hosts, which considered the optimization based on the energy performance trade-off. The best method is to determine the adaptive threshold by learning, but the disadvantage is that it focuses on the energy consumption; additional elements have effects during the dynamic scheduling process, such as the SLA and migration cost.

Most studies have focused more on the single objective of minimizing energy consumption. However, more factors should be considered during the scheduling process. For example, providers also emphasize maximizing the utilization, including the CPU and the memory. In addition, to reduce SLA violations, the proposed two-level method reduces energy and resource wastage.

Multiobjective optimization

One of the most important factors in server consolidation algorithms is the energy consumption. However, additional factors (e.g., the cost overhead, memory utilization, and SLA violations) should also be considered in the optimization algorithm. For example, Leili et al. [12] proposed an adaptive fuzzy threshold to detect overloaded or underloaded thresholds. The advantage of the method is that it proposes a double adaptive threshold to determine when the migration starts or where the VMs migrate. However, the proposed approach uses the energy and performance as the evaluation metrics. The MISTRAL [36] architecture proposed a strategy to reduce the power consumption and adaptation cost, which implemented the cost decision-making based on the response time. However, it developed a control architecture to solve the power trade-offs rather than several objectives. In [37], a multiple objective ant colony system algorithm that focuses on two objectives, including the makespan and the user’s budget, was presented. This strategy had the advantage of minimizing the rental costs more efficiently; however, it focused more on maximizing the resource utilization. Additionally, it ignored other elements, such as the SLA and resource wastage. In [38], the genetic algorithm was proposed to enhance the system provisioning, system performances, system failure and network overheads. The method considered more factors than the previous methods, but it ignored the cost overheads. In [39], the CMCVRP optimization model was presented to reduce costs and energy consumption. The method used cost reduction model to achieve the cost reduction percentages. In [40], the proposed method allocated the resources to minimize the total amount of resources while meeting the end-to-end performance requirements for the application. The method described in [41] provided a theoretical control solution to the dynamic capacity provisioning problem that minimizes the total energy cost while meeting the performance objective of task scheduling delays. The response time and the temperature also play important roles in data centers, which can greatly affect the service quality.

Based on the studies presented above, Table 1 provides a list of several consolidation algorithms that are used to solve optimization problems. The main optimization parameters are the minimization of the energy overheads and the cost overhead and the maximization of the application performance. We propose a two-level hybrid algorithm. First, the algorithm determines when to migrate. The proposed score model based on the GRA and TOPSIS methods achieves the adaptive threshold depending on the CPU utilization and memory utilization. Second, the hybrid heuristic algorithm includes the PSO and ACO algorithms, which emphasizes reducing SLA violations and the energy consumption. In addition, the PSO algorithm determines the hotspot VMs quickly, and the proposed ACO algorithm focuses on solving the VM placement problem to reduce SLA violations and the energy consumption.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Comparison of the consolidation algorithms.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.t001

Description of the main components

We propose a two-phase algorithm to conduct resource allocation in datacenters for cloud computing. The designed architecture is shown in Fig 2. When the application requests arrive, the monitoring system collects the data to calculate the threshold. We then take the threshold as the baseline to efficiently manage and consolidate the resources. The architecture includes a local scheduling mechanism and a global scheduling mechanism. The global scheduling mechanism determines the hotspots by using the score model based on the GRA and TOPSIS methods, and the local scheduling mechanism efficiently solves the VM placement problem. The main components are described in detail as follows.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. The main components of the architecture.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g002

• Application request

In cloud computing, it is essential to meet the users’ demands at any time. Before the requests are executed, the providers provision the resources rapidly to meet the users’ demands. The goal of the providers is to reduce the rental cost by maximizing the utilization and minimizing the energy consumption during the scheduling process.

• Monitoring system

The monitoring system collects the data, including the CPU utilization and the memory utilization. The collected information is used to calculate the score threshold by using the proposed model, which is described in detail in the next section. When the workload reaches the specified value, the proposed algorithm implements the efficient resource allocation method during the dynamic scheduling process.

• Global scheduling

The global scheduling mechanism includes three parts: the triggering part, selection part and location part. First, the triggering part determines the overloaded hosts and solves the issue of when to migrate. The selection part then determines which virtual machines are to be migrated. Finally, the location part solves the issue of where to migrate.

• Local scheduling

The local scheduling mechanism solves the VM placement problem by using the improved ACO algorithm. In addition, the proposed ACO algorithm emphasizes maximizing the utilization, avoiding SLA violations and reducing the power consumption.

The score threshold for hotspot detection

In this section, we present the score model based on the GRA and TOPSIS methods to determine the hotspots. The upper score threshold is triggered when the hotspot hosts have been located. The score threshold rule takes the GRA and TOPSIS methods as the multiobjective policy considering four metrics, as shown in Table 2. The policy scores every PM, including the CPU utilization and the memory utilization. It also considers two criteria, cost criteria and benefit criteria. For the cost criteria, we obtain a positive solution when the value is smaller. This is opposite to the benefit criteria. Furthermore, it is necessary to select the PM with more VMs considering cost and benefit, which likely reduces the rental cost. Based on the proposed policy, the selected hotspots are those that exceed the upper score threshold. The policy is described in detail below.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. The main parameters of the scheduling process.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.t002

Normalization of the decision matrix: By using the Delphi method [42], it is easier to determine the key factors, such as the CPU cycle, spare memory, CPU utilization and memory utilization, which are shown in Table 2. Because the data are different in the experiments, the normalization method uses the average in each column to normalize the decision matrix R, which is listed in Eq 1.

(1)

Improved TOPSIS: TOPSIS is the abbreviation for the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution [43]. The improved ideal solutions determine the positive benefit or cost criteria as listed in Eq 2. The negative value is determined using Eq 3.

(2)

(3)

Grey Relational Analysis: Grey theory [44] is an effective way to explore system behavior using limited information. We describe the GRA method in detail below. First, we determine the difference between the comparative series r_jk and the standard series or . The distinguished coefficient ρ usually has a value of 0.5 and is generally between [0, 1]. The Grey relational coefficients ς⁺and ς⁻ are determined using Eq 4 and Eq 5, respectively.

(4)

(5)

We then determine the degree of relation r on the weight coefficients ω multiplied by the Grey relational coefficient ς(k). The weight coefficients are determined by the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method [45–46]; they are respectively 0.19, 0.28, 0.29 and 0.24. The degrees of relation r⁺ and r⁻ are calculated using Eqs 6 and 7, respectively.

(6)

(7)

Relative Closeness: Based on the analysis presented above, the ideal solution determines the related closeness d⁺ using Eq 8. A higher value indicates that it is closer to the positive solution, and a lower value is closer to the negative solution. The negative related closeness d⁻ is calculated using Eq 9.

(8)

(9)

Score Model: A server might be overloaded. Multiple objectives should be involved in the scheduling process; the objectives are shown in Table 2. In this paper, we take the GRA and TOPSIS methods as the decision strategy to determine the hotspots. The overloaded score threshold is described by Eq 10, and it represents the point at which when to migrate. The parameter U_t represents the CPU utilization of the host, and d⁺ and d⁻ are the positive related closeness and the negative related closeness, respectively. Similarly, when the score is higher, the PM can easily show the hotspots.

(10)

Hybrid algorithm

The hybrid algorithm is a two-level hybrid algorithm. The first level includes a triggering part and a selection part, and it aims at determining the threshold and the migrated VMs. In addition, the selected VMs are quickly identified by the PSO algorithm. The second level includes the location part to solve the VM placement problem, which is implemented by the ACO algorithm.

In the first level, during the scheduling process, we obtain the score threshold as the triggering threshold by using the monitoring mechanism. In this phase, we consider both the CPU and the memory as the key factors to determine the source and target host machines under the fluctuating workload. If the demands exceed the triggering threshold, more VMs are provided to supply the demand at any time.

Triggered threshold: The triggering threshold is determined by the score model listed in Eq 10. In general, this host would be considered to be overloaded when the current utilization exceeds the upper threshold. In the experiments, the upper utilization threshold is usually set to 0.8. When the value exceeds the upper threshold, the servers are scaled up to meet the demand. The lower utilization threshold is usually set to 0.2, which is determined by experiments. We then define the score threshold by Theorem 1 and Lemma 1, which are shown as below. Hence, we determine that the triggered score threshold is greater than 80 percent, which mostly depends on the CPU utilization U_t and the related closeness d.

Theorem 1. The upper CPU threshold is 0.8 in most experiments. Therefore, during the dynamic scheduling process, the upper score threshold is higher than 80 percent.

Proof.

First, we take the inverse of Eq 10 on both sides at the same time and obtain Eq 11.

(11)

A utilization greater than 0.8 indicates an overloaded state. During the experiments, we find that d⁺ and d⁻ are 0.49 and 0.51, respectively. They are approximately 0.5 in the dynamic process. We start the calculation with Eq 12. By taking the inverse again, we determine that the hotspot score threshold is 80 percent, as shown in Eq 13.

(12)

(13)

Lemma 1. In the overloaded state, the upper score threshold is greater than 80 percent based on Theorem 1. Formally, the lower score threshold is (1−Score⁺), which is less than 20 percent.

Proof.

The lower score model is listed as Eq 14.

(14)

Generally, the uppper threshold arg min(Score⁺) is achieved, and it is approximately 80 percent in the over provisioning in Theorem 1. We then determine that the lower score arg max(Score⁻) is nearly 20 percent in the under provisioning.

Selection part: By determining the triggering threshold, we can select several VMs to migrate. In the experiments, we find that the CPU more easier reaches a specific value than the memory. Hence, we use the Euclidean distance method [47] to construct a distance model that includes both CPU utilization and memory utilization, as described in Eq 15. The selection policy selects the VM with the greatest distance to migrate by the PSO algorithm to avoid the overloaded state. The PSO algorithm is described in detail below. In addition, to reduce the energy consumption, we select all of the VMs hosted in the underloaded PMs to migrate.

• Step 1: Initialize all of the particles. The selection starts in the particles randomly.
• Step 2: For each particle, the fitness value is calculated using Eq 15, which includes the CPU utilization and memory utilization. If the fitness value is greater than the set value, we set the current value as pBest in the local search.

(15)

• Step 3: Choose the particle with the greatest fitness value of the particles as gBest. We then finish the global search.
• Step 4: Update the velocity and the position using Eqs 16 and 17, respectively. In Eqs 16 and 17, v is the velocity, present is the position, and. c₁ and c₂ are learning factor, which are equal to 2 in the traditional PSO algorithm [48].

(16)

(17)

• Step 5: Verify the number of iterations. If the number of iterations exceeds the maximum, the cycle is terminated.

In the second phase, the emphasis is on solving the VM placement problem. Previous researchers have focused more on the energy consumption. We propose a solution to obtain the reasonable positions depending on multiple objectives, including the SLA violations, resource wastage and energy consumption. These objectives are described in detail below.

SLA: The SLA violations are calculated as the difference between the actual requests and the allocated requests (AR) divided by the total requests (TR), as shown in Eq 18. That is, the SLA is defined as the ratio of difference requests to total requests. Eq 18 is described as follows.

(18)

Resource Wastage: To make full use of the resources, we consider the CPU and the memory to define the resource wastage as in Eq 19.When the resource wastage W is large, more resources are wasted. In Eq 19, U^P is the CPU utilization, and U^m is the memory utilization. Eq 19 aims to make full of the resources depending on the CPU and the memory.

(19)

Energy consumption: Previous studies have shown that idle servers consume approximately 70 percent of their peak power [49]. The energy consumption is given by Eq 20. We perform the experiments using Inspur Servers, which consume 700 W at full utilization. The idle power consumption coefficient k is equal to 0.7, and the current host power consumption ranges from the idle state (490 W) to full utilization (700 W). P_max represents the peak power, which is equal to 700 W in the experiments, and u is the CPU utilization.

(20)

Proposed optimized model: Based on the objectives presented above, we present the optimization model according to the utilization and energy consumption. We assume that the datacenter contains m VMs VM = {Vm₁,Vm₂,…,Vm_n} and n servers PM = {Pm₁,Pm₂,…,Pm_n}. The issue to be solved is the VM placement problem. In general, we assume that more VMs are placed in fewer servers. We can then formulate the proposed optimization model. For example, the first purpose of the optimization is to minimize the SLA violations, as listed in the Eq 21, in which S_i represents whether at the current host is selected or not. The second purpose is to reduce the resource wastage, which is formalized as Eq 22, in which U^p and U^m represent the CPU utilization and the memory utilization, respectively. The third purpose is to minimize the power consumption, which is given in Eq 23, in which k is the idle power consumption coefficient and is equal to 0.7, and P_max is the power consumption at full utilization. The parameter V_i shows whether the virtual machine is selected or not. U^v represents the CPU utilization of the virtual machine. Constraints 24 and 25 are responsible for the capacity constraints of the server, such as CPU and memory capacity. Constraint 26 shows whether the server or VM is selected or not. When the server is selected, it is equal to 1; otherwise, it is equal to zero. It is difficult to solve the multiobjective optimization problem. Here, we use the Pareto efficiency to minimize the SLA violations and energy consumption. Additionally, Lemma 2 states the Pareto efficiency, which is described in detail as follows.

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

Lemma 2. During the scheduling process, we consider solving the optimization problem with n objectives and m solutions. The multiobjectives are the SLA violations k₁, resource wastage k₂ and energy consumption k₃. The solution is kept as the dominated solution when it is not worse than the others in every objective. Eq 27 is listed as below.

(27)

This process is implemented in detail by using the following fast nondominated algorithm, which is used as the global search to obtain the optimal solution.

• Step 1: First, all of the solutions are evaluated.
• Step 2: Then, solutions m₁ and m₂ are compared according to the three metrics, including the SLA violations k₁, resource wastage k₂ and energy consumption k₃.
• Step 3: If solution m₁ is better than m₂ for the proposed metrics, it is marked as the dominated solution.
• Step 4: Otherwise, it is marked as the nondominated solution.
• Step 5: All of the solutions are searched until reaching the end.

Description of the improved ACO algorithm

This algorithm is a type of multiobjective scheduling approach, which considers minimizing the SLA violations, resource wastage and energy consumption. In this approach, we use the ACO algorithm to obtain reasonable results based on behavior probabilities. In addition, the proposed ACO algorithm attempts to select the proper positions to place the selected VMs. The feasible solution is achieved by selecting the suitable PM to place the VMs by using the multiobjective method. First, the ants choose a path randomly. They then target the position by using the fitness function Fit_best based on maximizing the utilization and reducing the energy consumption. Second, the pheromone is calculated and updated. Then, by using the Pareto efficiency, we compare all of the solutions to determine the dominated solution by minimizing the SLA violations and energy consumption solution. The detailed resource scheduling pseudocode is described in Algorithm 2. To implement the ACO algorithm, it is necessary to consider three main factors: the fitness function model, the pheromone and behavior probabilities. These factors are described in detail below.

Fitness function: When the ant travels, it forms the feasible solutions. To solve the problem efficiently, the fitness function is set by maximizing the utilization and minimizing the resource wastage and the energy consumption. Eq 31 is shown below. The parameters α, β and γ are the weight factors for the SLA violation, resource wastage and energy consumption, respectively. To maximize the utilization, the SLA violation function fit_sla is set based on the CPU utilization. When the utilization is higher than 0.8, fewer SLA violations occur. In Eq 28, when the utilization decreases, fit_sla increases. To minimize the resource wastage, it considers both the CPU and the memory. In Eq 29, when the resources are utilized fully, fit_w avoids wastage. The strategy to reduce the energy consumption is formalized in Eq 30. When the utilization increases, fit_p will increase. Based on Eqs 28–30, we define the fitness function Fit in Eq 31, in which it is necessary to determine the weight factors. By using the AHP method, we take weight factors α,β,γ as 0.39, 0.35 and 0.26, respectively. The higher the fitness value is, the more efficient a solution we obtain.

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

The pheromone: Generally, the proposed ACO algorithm considers two factors, the phermone matrix and the probability matrix. These two factors play important roles during the scheduling process. In this section, the pheromone is updated by Eq 32. In the initial phase, the pheromone is equal to the constant C. During the scheduling process, the pheromone matrix is updated by Eq 32, in which ρ is the pheromone evaporation factor, and is the incremental gain. As the incremental gain increases, the solution becomes more feasible.

(32)

In Eq 33, the increasing gain depends on the set multiobjective fitness function Fit_best that considers the SLA, resource wastage and energy consumption. When the increasing gain is bigger, a better path is achieved by the pheromone.

(33)

Behavior probabilities: Another important factor is the probability to choose the suitable approach, which is calculated from the pheromone information. Eq 34 defines the behavior probability. In Eq 34, when more pheromone is left by the ants, the path becomes more feasible. In Eq 34, η_iu is the heuristic information, which is applied in the behavior probabilities, and α and β are the weight factors of the pheromone and heuristic information, respectively.

(34)

The heuristic information η_iu is determined by Eq 35. The heuristic information is identified by the sum of the variance distances. When the heuristic information is higher, the probability will be greater.

(35)

After the parameters are determined by Eqs 32–35, the proposed ACO algorithm is implemented as shown Algorithm 2.

Algorithm 2: The proposed ACO algorithm

Input: the selected VM = {Vm₁,Vm₂,…,Vm_k}

Output: map the selected VMs to the reasonable host

//First, each ant is initialized.

1. Initialize all of the ants

2. Select the path randomly

//Then, the iterations start.

3. While (iter < iter_max)

4.    For each ant

//Start the evaluation

5.        Evaluate the fitness function by using Eqs –

6.        if the fitness value is higher,

7.            the fitness value is taken as the current value

//The pheromone is updated.

8.                Update the pheromone

9.        End if

//The probability is updated.

10.                Select the path of behavior probabilities by using Eqs –

11.            End For

12.        Until all of the VMs are placed in the hosts

13.        End iterations

14.        In the global search, compare all of the solutions of the fast nondominated algorithm according to the Pareto efficiency by minimizing the energy consumption, the SLA violations and the resource wastage

15.        End

Experiment settings

In the real-world testing experiments, we implemented the proposed algorithm with 7 PMs. One PM is installed on the CloudStack platform, and the other six use XenServers running in the management nodes (2.20 GHz Intel(R) Xeon(R) 8 CPU, 8 G of memory, running CenOs 6.9). We create 18 VMs (1 VCPU, 1 G memory, running CenOs 6.9) in the cluster. In addition, we divide the experimental settings into three parts. First, to evaluate the approach, we implement it under different workloads. Second, to analyze the performance, we define the performance metrics, including the SLA violation ratio, the energy consumption ratio and the resource wastage ratio. Then, to evaluate the proposed algorithm efficiently, we implement it by using other heuristic algorithms for comparison.

Experiment environment: To verify the proposed algorithm, we set two kinds of scenes in the experiments. In the first experiment, we used the workload generator memtester [50] to generate the CPU and memory workloads gradually, which is shown in Fig 3. In the second set of experiments, the application requests are generated by the TPC-W benchmark [51]. The second set of experiments implements the workload traces from real web requests, such as those from the EPA [52] and NASA [53]. We use Jmeter to generate the simulated application requests, as shown in Fig 4. The Jmeter plugin monitors more parameters, such as the CPU utilization and the memory utilization.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. The designed load from the memtester.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g003

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4. The simulated realistic workloads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g004

Metrics: The experiments use four performance indicators as metrics, such as SLA violation ratio sla_ratio, resource utilization U_cpu, energy consumption ratio p_ratio and resource wastage ratio w_ratio. We then define the SLA violation ratio in Eq 36, which is the feedback of the requests to verify the SLA violations. The parameter U_cpu represents the CPU utilization of the server. When the CPU utilization is greater than 0.8, it may be easier to fall into an SLA violation. The percentage of the energy consumption is defined in Eq 37. The percentage of resource wastage is defined in Eq 38.

(36)

(37)

(38)

In these equations, k represents the number of the servers, P_i and W_i are the current power and resource wastage percentages, respectively. total_w and total_P are the total resource wastage and the total energy consumption, respectively.

Comparison of the algorithms in comparison: To validate the proposed algorithm, we compare it with other algorithms from the perspectives of minimizing the energy consumption and the SLA violations. The other algorithms are listed in detail below.

• Single objective algorithm: In [54], the single objective approach consolidates the resources from the perspective of minimizing energy consumption. It is implemented by using the ACO algorithm. The other goal is to maximize the utilization by using a bin-packing algorithm during the resource allocation, such as the FF (first fit) algorithm.
• Double-objective algorithm: In [55], the authors consolidate the resources based on two objectives, such as energy consumption and resource wastage. The proposed algorithm is implemented by using the ACO algorithm.
• Multiobjective algorithm: In [56], the authors proposed the ACO algorithm to consolidate the resources based on multiple objectives, such as power consumption and SLA violations. However, it regards these parameters with the equal weights, but the parameters are slightly different. We propose an improved multiobjective algorithm based on the proposed ACO algorithm, which considers the SLA violations, resource wastage and energy consumption with different weight factors by using the AHP method.

These experiments were performed across the cloud platform. A comparison of other algorithms shows the accuracy of the proposed algorithm. We also consolidate resources efficiently by using the multiobjective method. The experiments use 100 ants and 100 iterations, and the parameters α and β are set to 2 and 3, respectively, in the experiments.

Experimental results

To verify the performance of the proposed algorithm, we compare it with other algorithms, including the single objective algorithm (ACO-U), the double-objective algorithm (ACO-UP) [55] and the multiobjective algorithm (MACO) [56]. MPSO is similar to the MACO algorithm; they use the same fitness function, but the MSPO is implemented by using the PSO algorithm. ACO-U is similar to the FF (first fit) algorithm, which puts the VMs into the PM of the minimal utilization. The experiments are designed with two types of workload; a synthetic load and a realistic load. The proposed algorithm attempts to simultaneously minimize the resource wastage and reducing the SLA violations and energy consumption.

Sythetic loads: The designed workloads are composed of three groups. Group 1 represents the lower variability workload, with the memtesters running in two VMs at nearly full utilization. Group 2 proposes slightly higher variability workload, with the memtesters running in four VMs at nearly full utilization respectively. Group 3 proposes a greater variability workload, with the memtesters running in eight VMs at nearly full utilization. The proposed algorithm is evaluated by four metrics: SLA violation ratio, resource utilization, energy consumption and resource wastage ratio.

SLA violation ratio: The SLA violation rate is one of the performance metrics. Fig 5 shows the SLA violation ratio for the six methods. The proposed algorithm (SACO) is clearly the best from the perspective of the SLA violations, such as multiobjective ACO (MACO) and multiobjective PSO (MPSO). In addition, the purpose of the ACO-U algorithm is to maximize the utilization to reduce the rental cost. This is the same purpose as the PSO-U algorithm. The intent of the PSO-P algorithm is to reduce the energy consumption. However, when the workload increases, the SACO algorithm has advantages and disadvantages; it can achieve the fewer SLA violations than the other algorithms for Group 1 and Group 2, but when the workload is higher, it is nearly the same as the other algorithms.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 5. SLA violation rates under the synthetic loads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g005

Resource utilization: The purpose of the resource utilization is to maximize the utilization to reduce the rental cost. Fig 6 shows that the SACO algorithm is better than the other algorithms. When the workload is light (Group 1), it achieves the better consolidation results than the other algorithms. When the workload is moderate (Group 2), the proposed solution is superior to the other algorithms; improves the resource utilization and reduces the rental cost. When the workload is heavy (Group 3), the proposed algorithm is approximately the same as the other algorithms. In other words, the results for these three groups are reasonable and demonstrate the effectiveness of the SACO algorithm.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 6. CPU resource utilization under the synthetic loads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g006

Energy consumption: A solution to reduce energy consumption is necessary. As shown in Fig 7, the SACO algorithm obtains the better results for minimizing energy consumption. With the lighter load (Group 1), the SACO algorithm achieves slightly better results than the other algorithms. With the higher workload in Group 2, the SACO algorithm is better than the other algorithms because it considers multiple objectives by using the Pareto policy. When the generated load in Group 3 is implemented, the performance is nearly to the same as the other algorithms. Generally, the SACO algorithm is reasonable for the synthetic loads, and it gives the better results during the scheduling process.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 7. Energy consumption under the synthetic loads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g007

Resource wastage ratio: The resource wastage is the metric used to measure the degree of resource wastage. This experiment verifies the degree of resource wastage by comparisons with other methods. The SACO algorithm proposed a resource wastage model that includes the CPU utilization and the memory utilization, which is designed according to Eq 19. The other algorithms focus more on the CPU utilization. Fig 8 shows that the SACO algorithm gives better results. It achieves the lower resource wastage in Group 1, whereas in Groups 2 and 3, it is approximately to the same as other algorithms. This is because these six methods all consider the CPU utilization similarly. However, the SACO algorithm obtains slightly better results than the other algorithms.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 8. Resource wastage rates in the synthetic loads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g008

Realistic loads: The depicted loads are implemented by simulated real-world workloads, such as those from the EPA and NASA. In these two simulated real-world workload experiments, the EPA workload is taken as the lower variability workload. The NASA workload has a slightly higher variability. The results are analyzed by the metrics as follows. With the real workloads, the proposed approach is compared with other ACO algorithms based on one or multiple objectives. For example, the SACO algorithm is implemented by using the fixed fitness function of different weights. The MACO algorithm [56] takes the set fitness function with equal weights, and the weight factors are the same. The goal of the ACO-P algorithm [54] is to reduce the power consumption. The purpose of the ACO-UP algorithm [55] is to maximize the utilization and reduce the energy consumption. The experimental results are described in detail below.

SLA violation ratio: The SLA violation is one of the performance metrics. In the EPA experiment, as shown in Fig 9, the SACO algorithm obtains slightly worse results for the SLA violation ratio than the other algorithms because it considers more elements when running under the lighter load. As shown in Fig 9, with the NASA workload, which is a heavier load, the results are better than those of the other algorithms. Therefore, the proposed algorithm is more suitable for minimizing the SLA violations under the heavy loads, such as the NASA workload.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 9. SLA violation rates under the realistic loads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g009

Resource utilization: Usually, the consolidation algorithm focuses on maximizing the resource utilization and reducing the rental cost for the providers. As shown in Fig 10, we achieve slightly worse results with the EPA wrokload and better results with the NASAworkload. The proposed solution (SACO) is more efficient than the others for maximizing the resource utilization under the heavy loads, such as the NASA workload.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 10. CPU resource utilization under the realistic loads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g010

Energy consumption: It is important to solve the energy consumption problem by choosing a suitable algorithm during the dynamic scheduling process. As shown in Fig 11, the SACO algorithm is clearly better than the others under the EPA workload. This is because it is easier to consolidate the resources when running under a lighter load. With the NASA workload, the SACO algorithm is slightly worse than the others. In addition, the ACO-P algorithm obtains the better results for minimizing the energy consumption under the NASA workload.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 11. Energy consumption under the realistic loads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g011

Resource wastage ratio: The degree of resource wastage degree is an indicators of whether the resources are used efficiently. As shown in Fig 12, the SACO algorithm obtains slightly worse results than the others under the EPA workload, and it obtains the better results than the others under the NASA workload. The proposed solution considers more factors. Therefore, it is clear that the SACO algorithm is more efficient under denser loads, such as the NASA workload.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 12. CPU resource wastage rates under the realistic loads.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.g012

In summary, realistic workloads were analyzed using simulated real-world loads, such as the EPA and NASA workloads. The results show that the SACO algorithm slightly outperforms the others because it considers more factors, such as the SLA violations, resource wastage and energy consumption. In addition, it provides more efficient solutions for realistic loads. A summary of the results from the realistic loads is given in Table 3.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. The results of the realistic workload by methods.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211729.t003