skip to main content
10.1145/3018896.3018947acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiccConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Customization of virtual machine allocation policy using k-means clustering algorithm to minimize power consumption in data centers

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 March 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cloud Computing provides rapid provision of computing resources like processing power, memory, network resources, storage, etc. Running computing resources for longer time, leads energy consumption, increase the emission of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and increase the expenditure cost for the resources usage. Hence there is a necessity to minimize the execution time to reduce energy consumption in the cloud environment. One of the existing approaches to reducing energy consumption is based on Migration and Placement Policy for Virtual Machine, but still improving placement technique we can further minimize power consumption. In our proposed architecture for cloud resource allocation based on Clustering method, we do map a group of tasks to virtual machines. For clustering, we work on task usage of CPU, memory, and bandwidth. This proposed clustering technique further decreases energy consumption by efficient resource allocation.

References

  1. Kaplan, J.M., Forrest, W. and Kindler, N. (2008) Revolutionizing data center energy efficiency. Technical Report. https://www.sallan.org/pdf-docs/McKinsey_Data_Center_Efficiency.pdf (accessed June 5, 2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Buyya, R., Beloglazov, A. and Abawajy, J. (2010) EnergyefficientManagement of Data Center Resources for CloudComputing: A Vision, Architectural Elements, and Open Challenges. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Parallel and Distributed Processing Techniques and Applications (PDPTA 2010), Las Vegas, USA,July 12--15, pp. 6--17. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, San Diego, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Greenberg, S., Mills, E., Tschudi, B., Rumsey, P. and Myatt, B.(2006) Best Practices for Data Centers: Lessons Learned fromBenchmarking 22 Data Centers. Proc. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Asilomar, USA, August 13--18,pp. 76--87. ACEEE, Washington, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Heller, B., Seetharaman, S., Mahadevan, P., Yiakoumis, Y., Sharma, P., Banerjee, S. and McKeown, N. (2010) Elastic-Tree: Saving Energy in Data Center Networks. Proc. 7th USENIX Conf. Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI'10), San Jose, USA, April 28--30. USENIX, Berkeley, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Greenberg, A., Hamilton, J., Maltz, D.A. and Patel, P. (2008) The cost of a cloud: research problems in data center networks. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 39, 68--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Zheng, K., Wang, X., Li, L. and Wang, X. (2014) Joint Power Optimization of Data Center Network and Servers with Correlation Analysis. Proc. IEEE INFOCOM 2014, Toronto, Canada, April 27--May 2, pp. 2598--2606. IEEE, Piscataway, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Reiss, C., Wilkes, J. and Hellerstein, J.L. (2011) Google Clusterusage Traces: Format+ Schema. Google, Inc. Mountain View, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kansal, A., Zhao, F., Liu, J., Kothari, N. and Bhattacharya, A.A.(2010) VirtualMachine Power Metering and Provisioning. Proc. 1st ACM Symp. Cloud Computing (SoCC'10), Indianapolis, USA, June 10--11, pp. 39--50. ACM, New York, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Nathuji, R. and Schwan, K. (2007) VirtualPower: Coordinated Power Management in Virtualized Enterprise Systems. Proc. 21st ACM SIGOPS Symp. Operating Systems Principles(SOSP'07), Stevenson, WA, USA, October 14--17, pp. 265--278. ACM, New York, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kim, K.H., Beloglazov, A. and Buyya, R. (2009) Power-aware Provisioning of Cloud Resources for Real-time Services. Proc.7th Int. Workshop on Middleware for Grids, Clouds and e-Science (MGC'09), Champaign, USA, November 30--December 4, pp. 1:1--1:6. ACM, New York, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Greenberg, S., Mills, E., Tschudi, B., Rumsey, P. and Myatt, B.(2006) Best Practices for Data Centers: Lessons Learned from Benchmarking 22 Data Centers. Proc. ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Asilomar, USA, August 13--18,pp. 76--87. ACEEE, Washington, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Mahendiran, N. Saravanan, N. Venkata Subramanian and N. Sairam, "Implementation of K-Means Clustering in Cloud Computing Environment", Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 4(10): 1391--1394, 2012, ISSN: 2040--7467Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. G. Malathy and Rm. Somasundaram, "Performance Enhancement in Cloud Computing using Reservation Cluster", European Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450--216X, Vol. 86 No 3, September, 2012, pp.394--401Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Y. Chen, A. Ganapathi, R. Griffith, and R. Katz, "Analysis and lessons from a publicly available google cluster trace," University of California, Berkeley, CA, Tech. Rep, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Di, D. Kondo, W. Cirne, "Host Load Prediction in a Google Compute Cloud with a Bayesian Model", in Proc. Of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC), Salt Lake City, UT, November 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. Balliu, D. Olivetti, O. Babaoglu, M. Marzolla and Alina Sirbu, "BiDA1: Big Data Analyzer for Cluster Traces", In proceedings of clusterdata:Balliu2014, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sheng Di, Derrick Kondo and Cappello Franck, " Characterizing Cloud Applications on a Google Data Center," 42nd International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP2013), Lyon, France, Oct 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. K. Mishra, J. L. Hellerstein, W. Cirne, C.R. Das, "Towards Characterizing Cloud Backend Workloads: Insights from Google Compute Clusters," ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 34--41, March 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Zhang Wei,Yang Hen - I,Jiang Hsin - yi,et al.Automatic data clustering analysis of arbitrary shape with K-means and enhanced ant-based template mechanism{C}.//Proc of 2012 IEEE 36th international conference on computer software and applications, 2012:452 -- 455. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ebrahimpour R, Rasoolinezhad R, Hajiabolhasani Z, et al. Vanishing point detection in corridors: using Hough transform and K-means clustering{J}. Computer Vision, IET, 2012, 6(1): 40--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICC '17: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Internet of things, Data and Cloud Computing
    March 2017
    1349 pages
    ISBN:9781450347747
    DOI:10.1145/3018896

    Copyright © 2017 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 22 March 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    ICC '17 Paper Acceptance Rate213of590submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate213of590submissions,36%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader