Data-Oriented scheduling with Dynamic-Clustering fault-tolerant technique for Scientific Workflows in Clouds

Cloud computing is one of the most prominent parallel and distributed computing paradigm. It is used for providing solution to a huge number of scientific and business applications. Large scale scientific applications which are structured as scientific workflows are evaluated through cloud computing. Scientific workflows are data-intensive applications, as a single scientific workflow may consist of hundred thousands of tasks. Task failures, deadline constraints, budget constraints and improper management of tasks can also instigate inconvenience. Therefore, provision of fault-tolerant techniques with data-oriented scheduling is an important approach for execution of scientific workflows in Cloud computing. Accordingly, we have presented enhanced data-oriented scheduling with Dynamic-clustering fault-tolerant technique (EDS-DC) for execution of scientific workflows in Cloud computing. We have presented data-oriented scheduling as a proposed scheduling technique. We have also equipped EDS-DC with Dynamic-clustering fault-tolerant technique. To know the effectiveness of EDS-DC, we compared its results with three well-known enhanced heuristic scheduling policies referred to as: (a) MCT-DC, (b) Max-min-DC, and (c) Min-min-DC. We considered scientific workflow of CyberShake as a case study, because it contains most of the characteristics of scientific workflows such as integration, disintegration, parallelism, and pipelining. The results show that EDS-DC reduced make-span of 10.9% as compared to MCT-DC, 13.7% as compared to Max-min-DC, and 6.4% as compared to Min-min-DC scheduling policies. Similarly, EDS-DC reduced the cost of 4% as compared to MCT-DC, 5.6% as compared to Max-min-DC, and 1.5% as compared to Min-min-DC scheduling policies. These results in respect of make-span and cost are highly significant for EDS-DC as compared with above referred three scheduling policies. The SLA is not violated for EDS-DC in respect of time and cost constraints, while it is violated number of times for MCT-DC, Max-min-DC, and Min-min-DC scheduling techniques.

1. J. Shi, J. Luo, F. Dong, J. Zhang, and J. Zhang, “Elastic resource provisioning for scientific workflow scheduling in cloud under budget and deadline constraints,” Cluster Comput., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 167–182, 2016.

2. D. Sun, G. Chang, C. Miao, and X. Wang, “Analyzing, modeling and evaluating dynamic adaptive fault tolerance strategies in cloud computing environments,” J. Supercomput., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 193–228, 2013.

3. D. Lifka, “XSEDE Cloud Survey Report,” no. September, 2013.

4. X. Li, J. Song, and B. Huang, “A scientific workflow management system architecture and its scheduling based on cloud service platform for manufacturing big data analytics,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., pp. 119–131, 2016.

5. B. P. Abbott et al, “LIGO: the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory,” Reports Prog. Phys., vol. 72, no. 7, p. 76901, 2009.

6. S. Bharathi, E. Deelman, G. Mehta, K. Vahi, A. Chervenak, and M. Su, “Characterization of Scientific Workflows,” in The 3rd Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large Scale Science, 2008.

7. S. Callaghan, P. Maechling, P. Small, K. Milner, G. Juve, T. H. Jordan, E. Deelman, G. Mehta, K. Vahi, D. Gunter, K. Beattie, and C. Brooks, “Metrics for heterogeneous scientific workflows : A case study of an earthquake science application,” 2011.

8. S. Callaghan, P. Maechling, E. Deelman, K. Vahi, G. Mehta, K. Milner, R. Graves, E. Field, D. Okaya, D. Gunter, and T. Jordan, “Reducing Time-to-Solution Using Distributed High-Throughput Mega- Workflows – Experiences from SCEC CyberShake,” pp. 151–158, 2008.

9. S. Abrishami, M. Naghibzadeh, and D. H. J. Epema, “Deadline-constrained workflow scheduling algorithms for Infrastructure as a Service Clouds,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 158–169, 2013.

10. D. Chakraborty, V. V. Mankar, and A. A. Nanavati, “Enabling runtime adaptation of workflows to external events in enterprise environments,” Proc. - 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. Web Serv. ICWS 2007, no. Icws, pp. 1112–1119, 2007.

11. E. Deelman, G. Singh, M. Livny, B. Berriman, and J. Good, “The cost of doing science on the cloud: The montage example,” 2008 SC - Int. Conf. High Perform. Comput. Networking, Storage Anal. SC 2008, no. November, 2008.

12. D. Serrano, S. Bouchenak, Y. Kouki, F. A. De Oliveira, T. Ledoux, J. Lejeune, J. Sopena, L. Arantes, and P. Sens, “SLA guarantees for cloud services,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 54, pp. 233–246, 2016.

13. J. Choi, T. Adufu, and Y. Kim, “Data-Locality Aware Scientific Workflow Scheduling Methods in HPC Cloud Environments,” Int. J. Parallel Program., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1128–1141, 2017.

14. W. Tang, J. Jenkins, F. Meyer, R. Ross, R. Kettimuthu, L. Winkler, X. Yang, T. Lehman, and N. Desai, “Data-aware resource scheduling for multicloud workflows: A fine-grained simulation approach,” Proc. Int. Conf. Cloud Comput. Technol. Sci. CloudCom, vol. 2015–Febru, no. February, pp. 887–892, 2015.

15. W. Chen and E. Deelman, “Fault tolerant clustering in scientific workflows,” Proc. - 2012 IEEE 8th World Congr. Serv. Serv. 2012, pp. 9–16, 2012.

16. B. Santhosh, P. K. A, and D. H. Manjaiah, “Comparative Study of Workflow Scheduling Algorithms in Cloud Computing,” pp. 31–37, 2014.

17. T. Mathew, “Study and Analysis of Various Task Scheduling Algorithms in the Cloud Computing Environment,” Int. Conf. Adv. Comput. Informatics, pp. 658–664, 2014.

18. W. Chen and E. Deelman, “WorkflowSim: A toolkit for simulating scientific workflows in distributed environments,” 2012 IEEE 8th Int. Conf. E-Science, e-Science 2012, 2012.

19. T. Kosar and M. Balman, “A new paradigm: Data-aware scheduling in grid computing,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 406–413, 2009.

20. L. Zeng, B. Veeravalli, and A. Y. Zomaya, “An integrated task computation and data management scheduling strategy for workflow applications in cloud environments,” J. Netw. Comput. Appl., vol. 50, pp. 39–48, 2015.

21. D. Poola, K. Ramamohanarao, and R. Buyya, “Fault-tolerant workflow scheduling using spot instances on clouds,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 29, pp. 523–533, 2014.

22. D. Kumar, G. Baranwal, Z. Raza, and D. P. Vidyarthi, “A systematic study of double auction mechanisms in cloud computing,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 125, pp. 234–255, 2017.

23. M. Malawski, G. Juve, E. Deelman, and J. Nabrzyski, “Algorithms for cost-and deadline-constrained provisioning for scientific workflow ensembles in IaaS clouds,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 48, pp. 1–18, 2015.

24. X. He, X. Sun, and G. Laszewski, “A QoS Guided Scheduling Algorithm for Grid Computing,” Office, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2002.

25. A. M. Madureira and A. B. Definitions, “Ordered Minimum Completion Time Heuristic for Unrelated Parallel-Machines Problems.”

26. R. J. Priyadarsini, “Performance Evaluation of Min-Min and Max-Min Algorithms for Job Scheduling in Federated Cloud,” vol. 99, no. 18, pp. 47–54, 2014.

27. K. Qureshi, F. G. Khan, P. Manuel, and B. Nazir, “A hybrid fault tolerance technique in grid computing system,” J. Supercomput., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 106–128, 2011.

28. A. Bala and I. Chana, “Fault Tolerance- Challenges , Techniques and Implementation in Cloud Computing,” Int. J. Comput. Sci., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 288–293, 2012.

29. E. Deelman, K. Vahi, G. Juve, M. Rynge, S. Callaghan, P. J. Maechling, R. Mayani, W. Chen, R. Ferreira Da Silva, M. Livny, and K. Wenger, “Pegasus, a workflow management system for science automation,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 46, pp. 17–35, 2015.

30. R. Tolosana-Calasanz, J. Á. Bañares, C. Pham, and O. F. Rana, “Enforcing QoS in scientific workflow systems enacted over Cloud infrastructures,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci., vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 1300–1315, 2012.

31. W. Chen, R. Ferreira, E. Deelman, and R. Sakellariou, “Balanced Task Clustering in Scientific Workflows,” pp. 1–8.

32. A. F. Antonescu and T. Braun, “Simulation of SLA-based VM-scaling algorithms for cloud-distributed applications,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 54, pp. 260–273, 2016.

33. S. Mustafa, B. Nazir, A. Hayat, A. ur Rehman Khan, and S. A. Madani, “Resource management in cloud computing: Taxonomy, prospects, and challenges,” Comput. Electr. Eng., vol. 47, p. , 2015.

34. Barladian, B. Kh, et al. "An efficient mulithreading algorithm for the simulation of global illumination." Programming and Computer Software 43.4 (2017): 217-223.

35. Fursova, N. I., et al. "A lightweight method for virtual machine introspection." Programming and Computer Software 43.5 (2017): 307-313.

36. Gusev, A. D., Andrey V. Nasonov, and Andrey S. Krylov. "Fast parallel grid warping-based image sharpening method." Programming and Computer Software 43.4 (2017): 230-233.

37. Kuplyakov, D., Evgeny Shalnov, and Anton Konushin. "Markov chain Monte Carlo based video tracking algorithm." Programming and Computer Software 43.4 (2017): 224-229.

38. Massobrio, Renzo, et al. "Towards a cloud computing paradigm for big data analysis in smart cities." Programming and Computer Software 44.3 (2018): 181-189.

39. Muruganantham, R., and P. Ganeshkumar. "Quality of Service Enhancement in Wireless Sensor Network Using Flower Pollination Algorithm." Programming and Computer Software44.6 (2018): 398-406.

40. Raja, R., and P. Ganeshkumar. "QoSTRP: A Trusted Clustering Based Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks." Programming and Computer Software 44.6 (2018): 407-416.

41. Pashchenko, N. F., K. S. Zipa, and A. V. Ignatenko. "An algorithm for the visualization of stereo images simultaneously captured with different exposures." Programming and Computer Software 43.4 (2017): 250-257.

42. Varnovskiy, N. P., et al. "Secure cloud computing based on threshold homomorphic encryption." Programming and Computer Software 41.4 (2015): 215-218.

43. Zelenova, Sophia A., and Sergey V. Zelenov. "Schedulability Analysis for Strictly Periodic Tasks in RTOS." Programming and Computer Software 44.3 (2018): 159-169.

44. Zipa, Kristina S., and Alexey V. Ignatenko. "Algorithms for the analysis and visualization of high dynamic range images based on human perception." Programming and Computer Software 42.6 (2016): 367-374.