Está en la página 1de 5

International Symposium on Electronic Commerce and Security

A Deadline and Cost Constrained Optimization Algorithm for Scheduling

Applications in Grids Based on Proportional Share Systems
Dazhen Wang, Kwang Mong Sim, Benyun Shi
Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University , ,

Abstract strategies for choosing providers based on the utility

Since computation of Grids enable the sharing, model. Furthermore, the brokers need to manage all issues
selection, query and aggregation of geographically associated with the execution of the underlying
distributed resources for solving large-scale problems, application. The service providers need economic
developing mechanisms for Grid resource scheduling is a protocols that help them to offer competitive services. For
complex undertaking problem. We had investigated the market to be competitive and efficient, coordination
several famous schedule methods proposed by Nimrod-G, mechanisms are required that help the market reach an
a famous computational economy framework for equilibrium price, that is, the market price at which the
regulating the supply and demand for resources. supply of a service equals the quantity demanded [4].
In this paper, we propose a novel scheduling algorithm, Numerous economic theories have been proposed in the
called deadline and cost constrained optimization literature and many commonly used economic models for
algorithm, which extends Buyya’s cost optimization and selling goods and services can be employed as negotiation
time optimization algorithm, keeping the cost and time protocols in Grid computing. Sim [5] argued that software
optimization at same time. Our optimization algorithm, agents, in particular e-negotiation agents, can play an
which is based on proportional share (PS), allows users essential role in realizing the Grid vision.
to bid higher in order to gain more resource shares. In Nimrod-G economy framework, the resource broker
Therefore, this algorithm adjusts a user bid periodically acts as an interface between the user and distributed
on these systems in order to finish the application on time. resources and hides the complexities of Grid computing.
Empirical results show that the algorithm had better It performs resource discovery, negotiates for access costs
performance than with conventional algorithms. using trading services, maps jobs to resources
(scheduling), stages the application and data for
1. Introduction processing (deployment), starts job execution, and finally
gathers the results. It is also responsible for monitoring
and tracking application execution progress along with
Computational Grids [1] enable the coordinated and adapting to the changes in Grid runtime environment,
aggregated use of geographically distributed resources, variation in resource share availability, and failures. The
often owned by autonomous organizations, for solving resource brokers use economy-driven deadline and budget
large-scale problems in science, engineering, and constrained (DBC) scheduling algorithms for allocating
commerce [2]. However, Grid services composition, resources to application jobs in such a way that the users’
resource management and scheduling in these requirements are met. In their work [3], they developed
environments are a complex undertaking [3]. Not only three scheduling algorithms for cost, time, and time-
because Grids can be large scale network (up to Internet variant optimization strategies that support deadline and
size) and stakeholders (providers and consumers) have budget constraints based on post price model. In this
different constraints and objectives, but also due to the work, we propose a new scheduling algorithm, called
geographic distribution of resources that are often owned DBC cost-time optimization, which extends the DBC
by different organizations having different usage policies cost-optimization and time-optimization algorithm by
and cost models, and varying loads and availability keeping minimizing weighted combination with cost and
patterns. time of computation at the minimum. We demonstrate the
Resource management systems need to provide ability of this new scheduling algorithm by implementing
mechanisms and tools that realize the goals of both it within the economic Grid resource broker simulator
service providers and consumers. The resource consumers built using the GridSim toolkit [2].
need a utility model to represent their resource demand Kelly [6] has introduced a notion of (weighted)
and preferences, and brokers that automatically generate proportional fairness where an allocation is made such
that the sum of (weighted) proportional gains cannot be
K. M. Sim gratefully acknowledges financial support for this work from increased. Because of the ease of implement ability,
the Hong Kong Research Grant Council, Project code: proportional share systems are often advocated for
resource allocation. Thus, we wish to incorporate

978-0-7695-3258-5/08 $25.00 © 2008 IEEE 46

DOI 10.1109/ISECS.2008.116
proportional allocation in our mechanism. Furthermore, it grid, we give a new strategy which integrate two factor,
can show the status competition of each brokers compare time and cost, to maximize benefit.
with Nimrod-G. In contrast to Nimrod-G, we require a set 2.1 Cost optimization and time optimization
of criteria to select our allocation mechanism; we had strategy
proposed a mechanism where a broker can verify an Cost optimal based on DBC: Jobs prefer to be done as
accurate allocation. At the same time, we can extend the economically as possible. The cost is composed of the
scheduling method of Nimrod-G into our new cost of accessing service at resource provider.
proportional share systems. min[Ck ]
A number of projects are investigating scheduling on ∀k (1)
distributed systems. In computational resources, the Time optimal based on DBC: Jobs prefer the element
notion of proportional allocation also exists as the lottery of budget set which gives the least response time Tk . The
scheduling mechanisms partition resources in direct time Tk is composed of Job j located on Pi computes the
proportion to the tickets owned, where the tickets are
similar to weights. Therefore we wish to incorporate service time at processor Pk from the following:
proportional allocation in our mechanism. min[Tk = u j / sk + reqC j * d i ,k + rspC j * d k ,i ] (2)
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section ∀k
2 presents the GridSim deadline and cost optimization reqC j * di ,k is the network delay of current network
algorithm in Nimrod-G framework. In contrast to when send a request message for a job, rspC j * d k ,i is the
Nimrod-G, we proposed a new scheduling method, which
attempts to minimize deadline and cost optimization at network delay when received the number of bytes of
same time based on market models. In Section 3, we result.
investigate the scenario of schedule resource based on 2.2 Deadline and cost optimization strategy
proportional share system. Whereas section 4 reports the Schedule strategy of Buyya did not consider both time
experimental simulations and empirical results, and and cost factors at same time, which may be requested by
section 5 summarizes the paper along with future work. some jobs in grid environment. To address this problem,
we provide deadline and cost optimization strategy which
2. Deadline and cost optimization algorithm place a relative preference parameter of time over cost at
processor, this is given by the equation below ( a is
In an economic model, the scheduler can use the weight coefficient giving relative importance to time, we
information gathered by a resource discoverer and also had normalization time and cost factors, j ∈ [1, N ] )
negotiate with resource owners to establish service price. c j − min[Ck ] T j − min[Tk ]
The resource that offers the best price and meets resource Min{α ∀k
+ (1 − α ) ∀k
∀j max[C k ] − min[Ck ] max[Tk ] − min[Tk ]
requirements can eventually be selected. This can be ∀k ∀k ∀k ∀k (3)
achieved by resource reservation and bidding. If the user Considering the two factors of scheduling, we propose
deadline is relaxed, the chances of obtaining low-cost deadline and cost optimization strategy: when a grid
access to resources are high. The cost of resources can resource broker request resource, first we give the
vary with time and the resource owner will have the full deadline and budget he can endured. The scheduling
control over deciding access cost. Furthermore, the cost method arranges new strategy most optimal resource to
can vary among users. The scheduler can even solicit bids GRB. In this mechanism, a has relation with QoS which
from resource providers in an open market, and selects the a user request. If service time weight is higher than time,
feasible service-provider(s). To accomplish this, we need then a is relatively smaller, and vice versa.
scheduling algorithms that take the application processing
Contrast to cost optimal and time optimal scheduling,
requirements, Grid resource dynamics, and the user
deadline and cost optimization strategy integrate time and
quality of service (QoS) requirements such as the
cost two different factors based on DBC, which satisfy the
deadline, budget, and their optimization preference into complex QoS request of most jobs in grid. The cost of job
consideration. In Buyya’s early work, he had discussed request should consider many factors, such as CPU,
deadline and budget constrained (DBC) algorithms for memory, disk, soft, etc [3].
scheduling Grid resources. The deadline and cost optimization strategy has three
Scheduling algorithms usually need to deal with stages; first, create broker request sequence and synthesis
different requests such as job processing time and job cost
cost of resource. Second, filter unmatched records which
which based on DBC. In real Grid environment, meeting
beyond DBC value. Third, sort resource by increasing
every request may be difficult. Buyya proposed three
synthesis cost, for each resource in order; assign as many
scheduling strategies: Time optimal, Cost optimal, Timed jobs as possible to the resource, without exceeding the
optimal based on cost optimal(C-T). Sections 2.1 and 2.2 deadline. Repeat steps until all requests are processed.
provide mathematic analyses of these models, because
Buyya model can not meet request of complex request in

3. Schedule resource based on PS systems receiving an allocation xi .We make the following
assumptions about brokers' valuations:
In Nimrod-G, a user specifies QoS parameters, such as Assumption 1:For all i ∈ {1,...N }
deadline and budget to a broker. Then, the broker
schedule user’s tasks to resources with different vi ( xi ) is continuously differentiable
allocations system, which does not use a proportional vi′ ( xi ) > 0 ; ∀xi ∈ (0,1)
share schedule system. GridSim[3] adopted Post Price The first assumption captures the fact that broker's
model as its economic model, in time optimization performance or marginal valuation of performance should
scheduling algorithm and cost optimization scheduling not change dramatically given a slight change in
algorithm, it just simply assigns one or many jobs to the allocation. The second assumption is intuitive as a
one resource only, the resource occupy type are broker's valuation should increase with allocation. Each
exclusively occupy it , therefore it only considers about broker's utility is the difference between the valuation and
the scenario of job in sequence queue. It does not cost of its allocation:
considers the problem of job competition, however, in the U i ( s ) = vi ( xi ( s)) − ci ( s , x)
real Grid environments, the occupy type of resource are
mostly share type. Moreover, users from different VOs Substituting from Equations (4) and (5), we have:
may competing to use the same resource at the same time. si (6)
U i ( s ) = U i ( si , s− i ) = vi ( ) − si
In fact, maximizing utilization and ensuring fairness si + s− i + ε
among users are two major issues in resource allocation. where s− i = ∑ N −1 s j − si is the sum of the bids of all
A system that uses a proportional share algorithm [7, 8], j =1

calculates a user share of a resource based on a user agents excluding the i-th agent and sN = ε is a bid made
weight in relation to the total weight of all users in the by an agent representing the resource. By bidding ε , the
system. However, a normal proportional share system resource has a way of declaring a reservation value for its
does not check the validity of each user weight. This will resource and prevents the possibility of agents colluding
lead to incorrect priority when one user gives a low- to purchase the resource for an arbitrarily small amount of
priority task the same weight as high-priority tasks of money. The first order necessary condition for a
other users. In this paper, the proportional share system maximizing interior solution is:
based on the user’s bidding price are proposed, therefore,
users with a tight deadline will bid higher in order to gain U i′ ( si , s− i ) = vi′( xi ( s )) xi′ ( s ) − 1 
more resource shares. si si
= vi′ ( ) −1 = 0
3.1 Allocation Mechanism si + s− i + ε ( si + s− i + ε ) 2
The Grid allocation problem can be formulated as Can be writing in to:
si ( s + s + ε )2
At first, N brokers of users competing for a resource vi′ ( ) − i −i =0
with fixed finite capacity. The resource is allocated using si + s− i + ε s− i + ε
market mechanism, where the resource schedule depends The left hand side of the above equation is a decreasing
on the relative signals or bids sent by the brokers. We function of si as vi′ (.) is decreasing in its argument,
assume that each broker submits a signal si to the
si / si + s− i + ε is an increasing function of si and the
resource. In our proportional share mode, we want our
allocations to be proportionally fair by bidding price. This second term has si only in the numerator. So, an interior
can be achieved with the following allocation rule: solution exists if and only if the left hand side is positive
s (4) when si = 0. A broker will participate in the bid (i.e.,
xi ( s ) = i
∑j i
s submits a nonzero bid), if and only if:
We note that this rule satisfies the proportionally fair vi′ (0) > s− i + ε
criterion for allocation in the systems proposed for
computational resources. In terms of cost of computation, In the application, each user has a broker that is
we note that it takes O(N) operations to perform the responsible in monitoring the progress of application and
allocation presented in equation (4), which is the minimal managing on how much to bid on each resource. A user
cost for making variable allocations to N brokers. If the can be part of many VO domains [15]. We consider a
broker has no extra profit, the cost for each broker is scenario where brokers are generated at some subset (user
request) of nodes in Grid with a sequence of jobs to
ci ( s, x ) = si (5) complete. The jobs require access to resources available
3.2 Broker Utility at various nodes throughout the Grid. Based on some
We assume that each broker has a valuation vi ( xi ) for budget constraints, the broker attempts to purchase
resources throughout the Grid to complete its set of jobs

according to a given performance measure or utility ∂L qik − qik s−ki k 2

function. We will assume that the brokers have perfect = + λ = 0 Î: λ = ( si ) ,

∂sik Cik Cik (sik ) 2 s−ki
knowledge about the states of demand (or equivalently,
the prices) of various resources in the Grid through GIS Because λ is identical for all tasks, we have the
services. From this, a broker will choose a sequence of following relationships between optimal bids:
resources that it will attempt to purchase service from to s−k i
complete its tasks. sik = sij
Let us assume that the i-th broker has a sequence of
k Buyya had already implemented the time optimization
jobs with ki tasks, where qi is the size of the job of the algorithm that schedules a user application on post-price
k-th task. Let Cik be the capacity of the resource providing models; we now extend it in to proportional share
the service needed by the k-th task of the i-th broker. allocation systems.
We assume that every resource allocates its services is 3.4 Time optimization Algorithm based(DBC)
proportionally fair mention above characterized by We now consider the situation where a broker is given
Equations (4) and (5). In this context, the bid will an investment, Ei , which it may not exceed as it attempts
constitute a payment that the broker is willing to make per to minimize the total time taken to complete its jobs,
unit of time that it uses the resource. Let si be the bid of moreover, it meets the request of deadline based
the i-th broker for resource chosen for the k-th task on its constraint. There is no benefit for returning any of the
k investment; we may consider the situation in the future.
itinerary and s− i be the sum of the bids of other brokers This can be expressed as the following optimization
competing for that resource (which includes the bid made problem:
by the k-th resource). Then, the rate of service obtained Ki Ki

by the i-th broker for its k-th task is min ∑ tik s.t. ∑e k
i ≤ Ei
k =1 k =1
xik = Cik ( k i k ) 3.5 Deadline and Cost Optimization Algorithm
si + s−i We can define the problem as the agent balance its
Then, the time taken to complete that job will be performance as measured by the time taken to complete
qk (s k + s k ) its jobs and the cost of obtaining service. We can consider
tik = i i k k − i it as the following criterion:
Ci si Ki Ki
The expense to the broker is the bid times the duration min ∑ α ik eik + (1 − α ik )∑ tik
of service, which yields k =1 k =1

q k (sk + sk ) where α represents the relative value to the i-th agent of

eik = sik tik = i i k −i i
Ci the time taken to complete the k-th job relative to its cost,
We can extend the schedule strategy of Nimrod-G in our equations, it is a weight coefficient. The agent is
based on proportional share system according to the minimizing a weighted combination of the total cost and
above analysis. the total time taken to complete all its jobs.
3.3 Cost optimization Algorithm based (DBC)
We consider another broker task where a sequence of 4. Performance Evaluation
jobs needs to be completed in a specified amount of time
(deadline based constraint), Ti, while minimizing the cost In this section, we evaluate the three policies discussed
accrued. This can be expressed as the following earlier to determine their effectiveness.
optimization problem: We construct a simulated experiment platform based on
Ki Ki
different resource numbers, varying from 20 to 200;
min ∑ eik s.t. ∑t i
≤ Ti different job numbers (from 5 to 150). Three optimization
k =1 k =1
algorithms (i.e., cost optimization, time optimization, cost
We solve this problem using the Lagrange method. We
and time optimization) are used in schedule methods. The
first introduce the Lagrange
ki ki
relative value α is set to be 0.5.
L = ∑ eik + λ (∑ tik − Ti )
k =1 k =1

Substituting for tik and eik and taking partial derivatives

with to sik , we have

based on proportional system that schedules a user
application in resource allocation systems.
In the future, we plan to design the system more details.
Moreover, we are planning to incorporate resource
reservation and different economic models into resource
allocation. This allows us to contrast the efficiency of
different economic models. In addition, we are
considering credit evaluation and job preemption and job
migration policy that tries to achieve the integrity of
market transactions.

6. References
[1] D. P. Anderson, J. Cobb, E. Korpela, M. Lebofsky,
and D. Werthimer. SETI@home: an experiment in
public resource computing. Commu.. ACM,
45(11):56–61, 2002.
[2] I. Foster and C. Kesselman (editors), The Grid:
Blueprint for a Future Computing Infrastructure,
Figure 1 Average time and average cost in different Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, USA, 1999. pp. 123–
number resource and different strategy 135.
It can be observed that Deadline and Cost [3] R. Buyya, D. Abramson, and J. Giddy, A Case for
Optimization curve is between cost, time and C-T curve. Economy Grid Architecture for Service-Oriented
The essence of C-T strategy is cost optimal strategy, it Grid Computing, Proceedings of the International
have little difference with cost optimal scheduling. Where Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium: 10th
Deadline and Cost Optimization mixed the time and cost IEEE International Heterogeneous Computing
factors, by adjusting the weights, we easily adjust Workshop (HCW 2001), April 23, 2001, San
preference; hence it is dynamic and overall. Francisco, California, USA, IEEE CS Press, USA,
As the resource number increasing in the proportional 2001
share system, it can be find in Figure1 that the average [4] D. Ferguson, C. Nikolaou, J. Sairamesh, and Y.
finish time of job is decreasing, and the average cost of Yemini, Economic Models for Allocating Resources
execute job is also has a slight reduce. Moreover, the in Computer Systems, In Market-based Control: A
average cost becomes stable, i.e., when more resource Paradigm for Distributed Resource Allocation, World
adds into system, it can not reduce the average cost of the Scientific Press, Singapore, 1996
whole system any more. [5] K.M.Sim, From market-driven agents to market-
oriented Grids, ACM SIGECOM: E-Commerce
Exchange, vol.5, no.2, pp.45–53, Nov.2004.
5. Conclusion and future work [6] Kelly, F., A. Maulloo, and D. Tan: 1998, `Rate
control for communication networks: shadow prices,
This work explores issues of framework about proportional fairness and stability'. Journal of the
economic models and different schedule algorithms in Operations Research Society 49(3), 237-252.
Nimrod-G. Based on the proportional share system, we [7] S. J. Regehr. Some guidelines for proportional share
present a deadline and cost optimization schedule CPU scheduling in general-purpose operating
strategy, and extend schedule method of Nimrod-G in to systems. In Work in progress session of the 22nd
proportional share system. In contrast to cost optimal and IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS 2001),
time optimal, deadline and cost optimization strategy London, UK, Dec. 2001.
considers a coefficient weight factor. In contrast with the [8] I. Stoica, H. Abdel-Wahab, K. Jeffay, S. K. Baruah,
traditional schedule strategy, deadline and cost J. E. Gehrke, and C. G. Plaxton. A proportional share
optimization is easier to realized and more dynamic for resource allocation algorithm for real-time, time-
weight adjustment. shared systems. In IEEE Real-Time Systems
Consider the problem of software brokers being used symposium, December 1996.
as proxies for the procurement of computational Grid
resources and applications requirement. We investigate a
time optimization algorithm, a cost optimization
algorithm, a deadline and cost optimization algorithm