Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Early Evaluation and Comparison of Three Private Cloud Computing Software Platforms

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cloud computing, after its success as a commercial infrastructure, is now emerging as a private infrastructure. The software platforms available to build private cloud computing infrastructure vary in their performance for management of cloud resources as well as in utilization of local physical resources. Organizations and individuals looking forward to reaping the benefits of private cloud computing need to understand which software platform would provide the efficient services and optimum utilization of cloud resources for their target applications. In this paper, we present our initial study on performance evaluation and comparison of three cloud computing software platforms from the perspective of common cloud users who intend to build their private clouds. We compare the performance of the selected software platforms from several respects describing their suitability for applications from different domains. Our results highlight the critical parameters for performance evaluation of a software platform and the best software platform for different application domains.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vaquero L M, Rodero-Merino L, Caceres J, Lindner M. A break in the Clouds: Towards a cloud definition. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 2009, 39(1): 50–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shafer J. I/O virtualization bottlenecks in cloud computing today. In Proc. the 2nd Workshop on I/O Virtualization, March 2010, pp.5–12. http://li46-224.members.linode.com/publications/papers/shafer-wiov2010.pdf, Dec. 2014.

  3. Wardley S, Goyer E, Barcet N. Ubuntu enterprise Cloud architecture. Technical White Paper, Ubuntu, 2009. http://www.ubuntu.com/sites/default/files/active/White-%20Paper%20Ubuntu%20Enterprise%20Cloud%20Architecture%20v1.pdf, Apr. 2015.

  4. Nurmi D, Wolski R, Grzegorczyk C, Obertelli G, Soman S, Youseff L, Zagorodnov D. Eucalyptus: An open-source cloud computing infrastructure. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2009, 180(1): 012051.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Saavedra R H, Smith A J. Analysis of benchmark characteristics and benchmark performance prediction. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 1996, 14(4): 344–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pu X, Liu L, Mei Y, Sivathanu S, Koh Y, Pu C. Understanding performance interference of I/O workload in virtualized cloud environments. In Proc. the 3rd IEEE CLOUD, July 2010, pp.51–58.

  7. Mucci P J, London K, Thurman J. The CacheBench report. Technical Report, ut-cs-98-394, University of Tennessee, 1998. http://icl.cs.utk.edu/projects/llcbench/cachebench.pdf, Jan. 2015.

  8. Schüller F. Grid computing with and standard test cases for a meteorological limited area model [Master Thesis]. Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Innsbruck, 2007. http://imgi.uibk.ac.at/file/157/download?token=KQL58LB2, Jan. 2015.

  9. Deshane T, Shepherd Z, Matthews J, Ben-Yehuda M, Shah A, Rao B. Quantitative comparison of Xen and KVM. In Proc. Xen Summit, June 2008. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228772586Quantitative_comparison_of_Xen_and_KVM/links/004635229734fe42f6000000, Jan. 2015.

  10. Reddy V V, Rajamani L. Evaluation of different hypervisors performance in the private cloud with SIGAR framework. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 2014, 5(2): 60–66.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Palankar M R, Iamnitchi A, Ripeanu M, Garfinkel S. Amazon S3 for science grids: A viable solution? In Proc. the 2008 International Workshop on Data-Aware Distributed Computing, June 2008, pp.55–64.

  12. Stantchev V. Performance evaluation of cloud computing offerings. In Proc. the 3rd International Conference on Advanced Engineering Computing and Applications in Sciences, Oct. 2009, pp.187–192.

  13. Khurshid A, Al-Nayeem A, Gupta I. Performance evaluation of the Illinois cloud computing testbed. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2009.

  14. Iosup A, Ostermann S, Yigitbasi M N, Prodan R, Fahringer T, Epema D H. Performance analysis of cloud computing services for many-tasks scientific computing. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2011, 22(6): 931–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Garfinkel S. An evaluation of Amazon’s Grid computing services: EC2, S3 and SQS. Technical Report, TR-08-07, School for Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2007.

  16. Juve G, Deelman E, Vahi K, Mehta G, Berriman B, Berman B P, Maechling P. Data sharing options for scientific workflows on Amazon EC2. In Proc. the 2010 ACM/IEEE International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, Nov. 2010.

  17. Kobayashi K, Mikami S, Kimura H, Tatebe O. The Gfarm file system on compute Clouds. In Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing Workshops and PhD Forum, May 2011, pp.1034–1041.

  18. Wang L, Zhan J, Shi W, Liang Y. In Cloud, can scientific communities benefit from the economies of scale? IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2012, 23(2): 296–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Walker E. Benchmarking Amazon EC2 for highperformance scientific computing. ; Login, 2008, 33(5): 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ostermann S, Iosup A, Yigitbasi N, Prodan R, Fahringer T, Epema D. A performance analysis of EC2 cloud computing services for scientific computing. In Proc. the 1st International Conference on Cloud Computing, Oct. 2009, pp.115–131.

  21. Jackson K, Ramakrishnan L, Muriki K, Canon S, Cholia S, Shalf J, Wasserman H J, Wright N. Performance analysis of high performance computing applications on the Amazon web services cloud. In Proc. the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), Nov.30–Dec.3, 2010, pp.159–168.

  22. Ye X, Lv A, Zhao L. Research of high performance computing with clouds. In Proc. the 3rd International Symposium on Computer Science and Computational Technology, Aug. 2010, pp.289–293.

  23. Ahuja S P, Man S. The state of high performance computing in the cloud. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 2012, 3(2): 262–266.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nadeem F, Fahringer T. Optimizing execution time predictions of scientific workflow applications in the Grid through evolutionary programming. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2013, 29(4): 926–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gupta A, Milojicic D. Evaluation of HPC applications on cloud. In Proc. the 6th Open Cirrus Summit (OCS), Oct. 2011, pp.22–26.

  26. Juve G, Deelman E, Berriman G, Berman B, Maechling P. An evaluation of the cost and performance of scientific workflows on Amazon EC2. Journal of Grid Computing, 2012, 10(1): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Juve G, Deelman E, Vahi K, Mehta G, Berriman B, Berman B, Maechling P. Scientific workflow applications on Amazon EC2. In Proc. the 5th IEEE International Conference on E-Science Workshops, Dec. 2009, pp.59–66.

  28. Vecchiola C, Pandey S, Buyya R. High performance cloud computing: A view of scientific applications. In Proc. the 10th International Symposium on Pervasive Systems, Algorithms, and Networks, Dec. 2009, pp.4–16.

  29. Evangelinos C, Hill C N. Cloud computing for parallel scientific HPC applications: Feasibility of running coupled atmosphereocean climate models on Amazon’s EC2. In Proc. the 1st CCA, Oct. 2008.

  30. Li A, Yang X, Kandula S, Zhang M. CloudCmp: Comparing public cloud providers. In Proc. the 10th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, Nov. 2010, pp.1–14.

  31. Ward J S. A performance comparison of Clouds: Amazon EC2 and Ubuntu enterprise Cloud. Technical Report, Cloud Computing Co-laboratory. University of St Andrews, SICSA DemoFEST, 2009.

  32. Tudoran R, Costan A, Antoniu G et al. A performance evaluation of Azure and Nimbus clouds for scientific applications. In Proc. the 2nd International Workshop on Cloud Computing Platforms, Apr. 2012, Article No. 4.

  33. Voras I, Orlić M, Mihaljević B. An early comparison of commercial and open-source cloud platforms for scientific environments. In Proc. the 6th KES International Conference on Agent and MultiAgent Systems: Technologies and Applications, June 2012, pp.164–173.

  34. Popović O, Jovanović Z, Jovanović N, Popović R. A comparison and security analysis of the cloud computing software platforms. In Proc. the 10th International Conference on Telecommunication in Modern Satellite Cable and Broadcasting Services (TELSIKS), Vol.2, Oct. 2011, pp.632–634.

  35. Garg S K, Versteeg S, Buyya R. A framework for ranking of Cloud computing services. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2013, 29(4): 1012–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia

    Farrukh Nadeem

  2. Department of Computer Science, National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences, Lahore, 54500, Pakistan

    Rizwan Qaiser

Authors
  1. Farrukh Nadeem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rizwan Qaiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farrukh Nadeem.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nadeem, F., Qaiser, R. An Early Evaluation and Comparison of Three Private Cloud Computing Software Platforms. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 30, 639–654 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-015-1550-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-015-1550-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation