Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A graph-based method for ranking of cloud service providers

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

Abstract

With the advent of cloud computing, more businesses are turning to the cloud for deploying their applications and for infrastructure solutions. Quality of Service parameters has a direct impact on businesses. Enterprises have to select the best cloud service provider with optimum cost. In this paper, we present a graph-based method for ranking cloud service providers. First, we compute a partial correlation between cloud service providers in terms of their response time. Second, we construct a graphical lasso regularization network with a penalty, which controls spurious connections. Third, the service providers are ranked based on degree centrality. Finally, we applied a normalized discounted cumulative gain method to measure the rank quality of cloud service providers. The comparative experimental results show that lasso regularization performs better than the traditional Bonferroni correction method.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heilig L, Lalla-Ruiz E, Voß S (2020) Modeling and solving cloud service purchasing in multi-cloud environments. Expert Syst Appl 147:113165

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nan G, Zhang Z, Li M (2019) Optimal pricing for cloud service providers in a competitive setting. Int J Prod Res 57(20):6278–6291

    Google Scholar 

  3. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R (2013) A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 29:1012–1023

    Google Scholar 

  4. Buyya R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S, Broberg J, Brandic I (2009) Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the fifth utility. Futur Gener Comput Syst 25(6):599–616

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gavvala SK, Jatoth C, Gangadharan GR, Buyya R (2019) QoS-aware cloud service composition using eagle strategy. Futur Gener Comput Syst 90:273–290

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jatoth C, Gangadharan GR, Fiore U, Buyya R (2019) SELCLOUD: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for selection of cloud services. Soft Comput 23(13):4701–4715

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benlian A, Hess T (2011) Opportunities and risks of software-as-a-service: findings from a survey of IT executives. Decis Support Syst 52(1):232–246

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ryan MD (2013) Cloud computing security: THE scientific challenge, and a survey of solutions. J Syst Softw 86(9):2263–2268

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ahirrao S, Ingle R (2015) Scalable transactions in cloud data stores. J Cloud Comp 4:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677-015-0047-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schaeffer SE (2007) Graph clustering. Comput Sci Rev 1(1):27–64

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Ding S, Wang Z, Wu D, Olson DL (2017) Utilizing customer satisfaction in ranking prediction for personalized cloud service selection. Decis Support Syst 93:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wagle SS, Guzek M, Bouvry P, Bisdorff R (2015) An evaluation model for selecting cloud services from commercially available cloud providers. In 2015 IEEE 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science IEEE. pp. 107–114

  13. Kashima H, Tsuda K, Inokuchi A (2004) Kernels for graphs. Kernel Methods Comput Biol 39(1):101–113

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kulis B, Basu S, Dhillon I, Mooney R (2009) Semi-supervised graph clustering: a kernel approach. Mach Learn 74(1):1–22

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J (2010) Node centrality in weighted networks: generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social networks 32(3):245–251

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jayaraman AK, Abirami S (2020) Opinion-based co-occurrence network for identifying the most influential product features. J Eng Res 8(4):185–205

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wills P, Meyer FG (2020) Metrics for graph comparison: a practitioner’s guide. Plos one 15(2):e0228728

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ding S, Xia CY, Zhou KL, Yang SL, Shang JS (2014) Decision support for personalized cloud service selection through multi-attribute trustworthiness evaluation. PloS one 9(6):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kumar A, Abirami S (2018) Aspect-based opinion ranking framework for product reviews using a Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient method. Inf Sci 460:23–41

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R (2013) A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Futur Gener Comput Syst 29:1012–1023

    Google Scholar 

  21. Liu S, Chan FT, Ran W (2016) Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: an improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes. Expert Syst Appl 55:37–47

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chen YK, Chen YJ, Chiu FR, Wang CY (2015) Towards successful cloud ordering service. Bus Sys Res J 6(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sun L, Ma J, Zhang Y, Dong H, Hussain FK (2016) Cloud-FuSeR: fuzzy ontology and MCDM based cloud service selection. Futur Gener Comput Syst 57:42–55

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wang X, Cao J, Xiang Y (2015) Dynamic cloud service selection using an adaptive learning mechanism in multi-cloud computing. J Syst Softw 100:195–210

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ghosh N, Ghosh SK, Das SK (2014) ‘SelCSP: a framework to facilitate selection of cloud service providers. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 3(1):66–79

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lin F, Zeng W, Yang L, Wang Y, Lin S, Zeng J (2017) Cloud computing system risk estimation and service selection approach based on cloud focus theory. Neural Comput Appl 28(7):1863–1876

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gui Z, Yang C, Xia J, Huang Q, Liu K, Li Z, Jin B (2014) A service brokering and recommendation mechanism for better selecting cloud services. PloS one 9(8):e105297

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ding S, Li Y, Wu D, Zhang Y, Yang S (2018) Time-aware cloud service recommendation using similarity-enhanced collaborative filtering and ARIMA model. Decis Support Syst 107:103–115

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yu Q (2015) CloudRec: a framework for personalized service Recommendation in the Cloud. Knowl Inf Syst 43(2):417–443

    Google Scholar 

  30. Devi R, Shanmugalakshmi R (2020) Cloud providers ranking and selection using quantitative and qualitative approach. Comput Commun 154:370–379

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kaur H, Rai A, Bhatia SS, Dhiman G (2020) MOEPO: a novel multi-objective emperor penguin optimizer for global optimization: special application in ranking of cloud service providers. Eng Appl Artif Intell 96:104008

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kumar RR, Shameem M, Kumar C (2021) A computational framework for ranking prediction of cloud services under fuzzy environment. Enterp Inf Sys. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2021.1889037

  33. Tiwari RK, Kumar R (2021) G-TOPSIS: a cloud service selection framework using Gaussian TOPSIS for rank reversal problem. J Supercomput 77(1):523–562

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Epskamp S, Maris GK, Waldorp LJ, Borsboom D (2016) Network psychometrics. arXiv preprint https://arXiv.org/abs/1609.02818

  35. Epskamp S, Fried EI (2018) A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychol Methods 23(4):617

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chakrabarti D, Faloutsos C (2006) Graph mining: laws, generators, and algorithms. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 38(1):2-es

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zheng Z (2012) http://www.zibinzheng.com/tpds2012

  38. McNally RJ (2016) Can network analysis transform psychopathology? Behav Res Ther 86:95–104

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wang GJ, Xie C, Stanley HE (2018) Correlation structure and evolution of world stock markets: evidence from Pearson and partial correlation-based networks. Comput Econ 51(3):607–635

    Google Scholar 

  40. Costantini G, Epskamp S, Borsboom D, Perugini M, Mõttus R, Waldorp LJ, Cramer AO (2015) State of the aRt personality research: a tutorial on network analysis of personality data in R. J Res Pers 54:13–29

    Google Scholar 

  41. Drton M, Perlman MD (2004) Model selection for Gaussian concentration graphs. Biometrika 91(3):591–602

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (Methodol) 58(1):267–288

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Barber RF, Drton M (2015) High-dimensional Ising model selection with Bayesian information criteria. Electr J Stat 9(1):567–607

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Foygel R, Drton M (2010) Extended Bayesian information criteria for Gaussian graphical models. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 23:2020–2028

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zhao P, Yu B (2006) On model selection consistency of Lasso. J Mach Learn Res 7:2541–2563

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Chen J, Chen Z (2008) Extended Bayesian information criteria for model selection with large model spaces. Biometrika 95(3):759–771

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Van Borkulo CD, Borsboom D, Epskamp S, Blanken TF, Boschloo L, Schoevers RA, Waldorp LJ (2014) A new method for constructing networks from binary data. Sci Rep 4(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  48. Järvelin K, Kekäläinen J (2017) IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. ACM SIGIR Forum. 51(2):243–250

    Google Scholar 

  49. Epskamp S, Cramer AO, Waldorp LJ, Schmittmann VD, Borsboom D (2012) Qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. J Stat Softw 48(4):1–18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i04

    Google Scholar 

  50. Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2008) Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso. Biostatistics 9(3):432–441

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science and Technology, Anna University, Chennai, 600 025, India

    Tina Esther Trueman & J. Ashok Kumar

  2. Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, 641004, India

    P. Narayanasamy

Authors
  1. Tina Esther Trueman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Narayanasamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Ashok Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tina Esther Trueman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Trueman, T.E., Narayanasamy, P. & Ashok Kumar, J. A graph-based method for ranking of cloud service providers. J Supercomput 78, 7260–7277 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-021-04156-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-021-04156-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation