Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scheduling scientific workflows on virtual machines using a Pareto and hypervolume based black hole optimization algorithm

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of workflow scheduling on virtual machines in a cloud environment is to find the near optimal permutation of the assignment of independent computational jobs on a set of machines that satisfies conflicting objectives. This problem is known to be an NP-hard problem. Evolutionary multiobjective algorithms are optimization methods to solve such problems. hypervolume is one of the most important criteria that is used to both as solution evaluation and as a guidance for near-optimal selection of a set of solutions called the Pareto front. In this paper, a new hypervolume-based multiobjective algorithm is proposed for driving the Pareto front. To this end, we extend the single-objective Black hole heuristic algorithm based on the adopted \(\theta \)-dominance relation to improving the diversity and convergence to an optimal Pareto front. The conflicting objectives are resource utilization, resource cost, and the workflow makespan (completion time). Also to presenting the appropriate scheduling algorithm, we have proven the correctness of the proposed algorithm by providing the behavioral model of the suggested system using model checking tool. For this purpose, we first introduce the behavioral model of the proposed system using Abstract state machine and extract the properties of the algorithm in the form of linear temporal logic. Then we encode the algorithm using the model checker tool Abstract state Machine Meta-model-based Language and verify the accuracy of the algorithm based on the expected properties, reachability, fairness, and deadlock-free. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method we: (1) extended the WorkflowSim tools, (2) applied it to both balanced and imbalanced workflows and (3) compared results to algorithms, Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm-2, Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-2, Multi-Swarm MultiObjective Optimization, Intelligent Water Drops algorithm and Genetic Algorithm and Pareto-based Grey Wolf Optimizer. The comparisons show that by increasing the number of users requests and their correlations, the proposed algorithm can find more optimal Pareto front.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Garey MR, Johnson DS (1990) Computers and intractability; a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Fleischer M (2003) The measure of Pareto optima applications to multi-objective metaheuristics. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-criterion Optimization, EMO’03. Springer, Berlin, pp 519–533

  3. Zitzler E, Kunzli S (2004) Indicator-based selection in multiobjective search. In: In Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN VIII). Springer, pp 832–842

  4. Beume N, Naujoks B, Emmerich M (2007) SMS-EMOA: multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. Eur J Oper Res 181:1653–1669

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Igel C, Hansen N, Roth S (2007) Covariance matrix adaptation for multi-objective optimization. Evol Comput 15:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ebadifard F, Babamir SM (2017) Optimizing multi objective based workflow scheduling in cloud computing using black hole algorithm. In: 2017 3th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR), pp 102–108

  7. Hatamlou A (2013) Black hole: a new heuristic optimization approach for data clustering. Inf Sci 222:175–184 Including Special Section on New Trends in Ambient Intelligence and Bio-inspired Systems

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen W, Deelman E Workflowsim (2012) A toolkit for simulating scientific workflows in distributed environments. In: 2012 IEEE 8th International Conference on E-Science, pp 1–8

  9. Calheiros RN, Ranjan R, Beloglazov A, De Rose CAF, Buyya R (2011) Cloudsim: a toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Softw Pract Exp 41:23–50

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2002) SPEA2: improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization

  11. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:182–197

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yao G-S, Ding Y-S, Hao K-R (2017) Multi-objective workflow scheduling in cloud system based on cooperative multi-swarm optimization algorithm. J Central South Univ 24:1050–1062

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kalra M, Singh S (2019) Multicriteria workflow scheduling on clouds under deadline and budget constraints. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 31:e5193

    Google Scholar 

  14. Khalili A, Babamir SM (2017) Optimal scheduling workflows in cloud computing environment using Pareto based grey wolf optimizer. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 29:e4044

    Google Scholar 

  15. Li J, Su S, Cheng X, Huang Q, Zhang Z, Cost-conscious scheduling for large graph processing in the cloud. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, pp 808–813

  16. Dongarra JJ, Jeannot E, Saule E, Shi Z (2007) Bi-objective scheduling algorithms for optimizing makespan and reliability on heterogeneous systems. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA ’07. ACM, New York, pp 280–288

  17. Sih GC, Lee EA (1993) A compile-time scheduling heuristic for interconnection-constrained heterogeneous processor architectures. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 4:175–187

    Google Scholar 

  18. Doğan A, Özgüner F (2005) Biobjective scheduling algorithms for execution time–reliability trade-off in heterogeneous computing systems*. Comput J 48:300–314

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bilgaiyan S, Sagnika S, Das M (2015) A multi-objective cat swarm optimization algorithm for workflow scheduling in cloud computing environment. In: Jain LC, Patnaik S, Ichalkaranje N (eds) Intelligent computing, communication and devices. Springer, New Delhi, pp 73–84

    Google Scholar 

  20. Udomkasemsub O, Xiaorong L, Achalakul T (2012) A multiple-objective workflow scheduling framework for cloud data analytics. In: 2012 Ninth International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE), pp 391–398

  21. Wu Z, Ni Z, Gu L, Liu X (2010) A revised discrete particle swarm optimization for cloud workflow scheduling. In: 2010 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security, pp 184–188

  22. Zhang M, Li H, Liu L, Buyya R (2018) An adaptive multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for constrained workflow scheduling in clouds. Distrib Parallel Databases 36:339–368

    Google Scholar 

  23. Verma A, Kaushal S (2017) A hybrid multi-objective particle swarm optimization for scientific workflow scheduling. Parallel Comput 62:1–19

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Xu H, Yang B, Qi W, Ahene E (2016) A multi-objective optimization approach to workflow scheduling in clouds considering fault recovery. KSII Trans Internet Inf Syst 10(3):976–995

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou J, Wang T, Cong P, Lu P, Wei T, Chen M (2019) Cost and makespan-aware workflow scheduling in hybrid clouds. J Syst Archit 100:101631

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ajeena Beegom AS, Rajasree MS (2019) Non-dominated sorting based PSO algorithm for workflow task scheduling in cloud computing systems. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 37(5):6801–6813

    Google Scholar 

  27. Alazzam H, Alhenawi E, Al-Sayyed R (2019) A hybrid job scheduling algorithm based on Tabu and harmony search algorithms. J Supercomput 76:7994–8011

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dharwadkar N, Poojara S, Kadam P (2018) Fault tolerant and optimal task clustering for scientific workflow in cloud. Int J Cloud Appl Comput 8:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  29. Singh V, Gupta I, Jana P (2019) An energy efficient algorithm for workflow scheduling in IAAS cloud. J Grid Comput

  30. Durillo JJ, Fard HM, Prodan R Moheft (2012) A multi-objective list-based method for workflow scheduling. In: 4th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science Proceedings, pp 185–192

  31. Durillo JJ, Prodan R (2014) Multi-objective workflow scheduling in Amazon EC2. Cluster Comput 17:169–189

    Google Scholar 

  32. Talukder AKMKA, Kirley M, Buyya R (2009) Multiobjective differential evolution for scheduling workflow applications on global grids. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 21:1742–1756

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tsai J-T, Fang J-C, Chou J-H (2013) Optimized task scheduling and resource allocation on cloud computing environment using improved differential evolution algorithm. Comput Oper Res 40:3045–3055

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Yu J, Kirley M, Buyya R (2007) Multi-objective planning for workflow execution on grids. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing, GRID ’07. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 10–17

  35. Zhu Z, Zhang G, Li M, Liu X (2016) Evolutionary multi-objective workflow scheduling in cloud. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 27:1344–1357

    Google Scholar 

  36. Durillo JJ, Prodan R, Barbosa JG (2015) Pareto tradeoff scheduling of workflows on federated commercial clouds. Simul Model Pract Theory 58:95–111 Special Issue on TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE ULTRASCALE COMPUTING SYSTEMS

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zhou X, Zhang G, Sun J, Zhou J, Wei T, Hu S (2019) Minimizing cost and makespan for workflow scheduling in cloud using fuzzy dominance sort based heft. Future Gener Comput Syst 93:278–289

    Google Scholar 

  38. Auger A, Bader J, Brockhoff D, Zitzler E (2012) Hypervolume-based multiobjective optimization: theoretical foundations and practical implications. Theor Comput Sci 425:75–103 Theoretical Foundations of Evolutionary Computation

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Jiang S, Zhang J, Ong Y, Zhang AN, Tan PS (2015) A simple and fast hypervolume indicator-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithm. IEEE Trans Cybern 45:2202–2213

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schutze O, Hernandez VAS, Trautmann H, Rudolph G (2016) The hypervolume based directed search method for multi-objective optimization problems. J Heuristics 22:273–300

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wong CSY, Al-Dujaili A, Sundaram S (2016) Hypervolume-based direct for multi-objective optimisation. In: Proceedings of the 2016 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, GECCO ’16 Companion. ACM, New York, pp 1201–1208

  42. Yuan Y, Xu H, Wang B, Yao X (2016) A new dominance relation-based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 20:16–37

    Google Scholar 

  43. Yamagishi K, Gonsalves T, Itoh K (2009) Service cost and utilization rate optimization in service systems. J Integr Des Process Sci 13:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ebadifard F, Babamir SM (2018) A pso-based task scheduling algorithm improved using a load-balancing technique for the cloud computing environment. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 30:e4368 E4368 CPE-16-0467.R4

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ebadifard F, Babamir SM (2018) A modified black hole-based multi-objective workflow scheduling improved using the priority queues for cloud computing environment. In: 2018 4th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR), pp 162–167

  46. Fatemeh Ebadifard SMB (2018) A multi-objective approach with waspas decision-making for workflow scheduling in cloud environment. Int J Web Res 1:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rivera-Lopeze R, Canul-Reich J (2018) Differential evolution algorithm in the construction of interpretable classification models. In: Aceves-Fernandez MA (ed) Artificial intelligence. Emerging trends and applications, Chap. 3, 1st edn. IntechOpen

  48. Ausiello G, Crescenzi P, Gambosi G, Kann V, Marchetti-Spaccamela A, Protasi M (2013) Complexity and approximation: combinatorial optimization problems and their approximability properties. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Tasgetiren MF, Liang Y-C, Sevkli M, Gencyilmaz G (2007) A particle swarm optimization algorithm for makespan and total flowtime minimization in the permutation flowshop sequencing problem. Eur J Oper Res 177:1930–1947

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Deb K, Jain H (2014) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part I: solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18:577–601

    Google Scholar 

  51. Grodzevich O, Romanko O (2006) Normalization and other topics in multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of the FieldsMITACS Industrial Problems Workshop

  52. Kirkpatrick S (1984) Optimization by simulated annealing: quantitative studies. J Stat Phys 34:975–986

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  53. Jensen MT (2003) Reducing the run-time complexity of multiobjective EAS: the NSGA-II and other algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7:503–515

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ebadifard F, Doostali S, Babamir SM (2018) A firefly-based task scheduling algorithm for the cloud computing environment: formal verification and simulation analyses. In: 9th International Symposium on Telecommunications, IST 2018, Tehran, Iran, December 17–19, pp 664–669

  55. Bharathi S, Chervenak A, Deelman E, Mehta G, Su M, Vahi K (2008) Characterization of scientific workflows. In: 2008 Third Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science, pp 1–10

  56. Singh V, Gupta I, Jana PK (2019) An energy efficient algorithm for workflow scheduling in IAAS cloud. J Grid Comput

  57. Durillo JJ, Nebro AJ (2011) jMetal: a java framework for multi-objective optimization. Adv Eng Softw 42:760–771

    Google Scholar 

  58. Okabe T, Jin Y, Sendhoff B (2003) A critical survey of performance indices for multi-objective optimisation. In: The 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC ’03, vol 2, pp 878–885

  59. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3:257–271

    Google Scholar 

  60. Zitzler E, Knowles J, Thiele L (2008) Quality assessment of Pareto set approximations. Springer, Berlin, pp 373–404

    Google Scholar 

  61. Auger A, Bader J, Brockhoff D, Zitzler E (2009) Theory of the hypervolume indicator: optimal \(\mu \)-distributions and the choice of the reference point. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGEVO Workshop on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, FOGA ’09. ACM, New York, pp 87–102

  62. Ishibuchi H, Hitotsuyanagi Y, Tsukamoto N, Nojima Y (2010) Many-objective test problems to visually examine the behavior of multiobjective evolution in a decision space. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature: Part II, PPSN’10. Springer, Berlin, pp 91–100

  63. Zou X, Chen Y, Liu M, Kang L (2008) A new evolutionary algorithm for solving many-objective optimization problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B (Cybern) 38:1402–1412

    Google Scholar 

  64. Bader J, Zitzler E (2011) Hype: an algorithm for fast hypervolume-based many-objective optimization. Evol Comput 19:45–76

    Google Scholar 

  65. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98

    Google Scholar 

  66. Saaty T (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank University of Kashan for supporting this research under Grant #231432.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Engineering, University of Kashan, Kashan, Iran

    Fatemeh Ebadifard & Seyed Morteza Babamir

Authors
  1. Fatemeh Ebadifard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seyed Morteza Babamir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyed Morteza Babamir.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ebadifard, F., Babamir, S.M. Scheduling scientific workflows on virtual machines using a Pareto and hypervolume based black hole optimization algorithm. J Supercomput 76, 7635–7688 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03183-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03183-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation