skip to main content
research-article

Multi-Cloud Provisioning and Load Distribution for Three-Tier Applications

Published:07 October 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Cloud data centers are becoming the preferred deployment environment for a wide range of business applications because they provide many benefits compared to private in-house infrastructure. However, the traditional approach of using a single cloud has several limitations in terms of availability, avoiding vendor lock-in, and providing legislation-compliant services with suitable Quality of Experience (QoE) to users worldwide. One way for cloud clients to mitigate these issues is to use multiple clouds (i.e., a Multi-Cloud). In this article, we introduce an approach for deploying three-tier applications across multiple clouds in order to satisfy their key nonfunctional requirements. We propose adaptive, dynamic, and reactive resource provisioning and load distribution algorithms that heuristically optimize overall cost and response delays without violating essential legislative and regulatory requirements. Our simulation with realistic workload, network, and cloud characteristics shows that our method improves the state of the art in terms of availability, regulatory compliance, and QoE with acceptable sacrifice in cost and latency.

References

  1. A. Aarsten, D. Brugali, and G. Menga. 1996. Patterns for three-tier client/server applications. In Proceedings of Pattern Languages of Programs (PLoP’96).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Amazon. 2014a. Amazon Auto Scaling. (Feb. 3 2014). http://aws.amazon.com/autoscaling/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Amazon. 2014b. Amazon ElastiCache. (Feb. 3 2014). http://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Amazon. 2014c. Amazon Route 53. Retrieved from http://aws.amazon.com/route53/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Amazon. 2014d. Elastic Load Balancing. Retrieved from http://aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Amazon. 2014e. Summary of the Amazon EC2 and Amazon RDS Service Disruption. Retrieved from http://aws.amazon.com/message/65648/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Amazon. 2014f. Summary of the AWS Service Event in the US East Region. Retrieved from http://aws.amazon.com/message/67457/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. C. Amza, A. Chanda, A. L. Cox, S. Elnikety, R. Gil, K. Rajamani, W. Zwaenepoel, E. Cecchet, and J. Marguerite. 2002. Specification and implementation of dynamic Web site benchmarks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Workload Characterization. 3--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Apache Foundation. 2014a. Apache Delta Cloud. Retrieved from http://deltacloud.apache.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Apache Foundation. 2014b. Apache Libcloud. Retrieved from http://libcloud.apache.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Apache Foundation. 2014c. Apache Nuvem. Retrieved from http://incubator.apache.org/nuvem/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Ardagna, E. Di Nitto, P. Mohagheghi, S. Mosser, C. Ballagny, F. D’Andria, G. Casale, P. Matthews, C.-S. Nechifor, D. Petcu, A. Gericke, and C. Sheridan. 2012. MODAClouds: A model-driven approach for the design and execution of applications on multiple Clouds. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling in Software Engineering (MISE’12). 50--56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MISE.2012.6226014 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Armbrust, A. Fox, R. Griffith, A. D. Joseph, and R. H. Katz. 2009. Above the Clouds: A Berkeley View of Cloud Computing. Technical Report. Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. A. Bowen. 2011. Legal issues in cloud computing. In Cloud Computing: Principles and Paradigms, R. Buyya, J. Broberg, and A. M. Goscinski (Eds.). Wiley Press, Chapter 24, 593--613.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. E. Brewer. 2000. Towards robust distributed systems. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, Vol. 19. ACM, New York, NY, US, 7--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. Brewer. 2012. CAP twelve years later: How the “Rules” have changed. Computer 45, 2 (2012), 23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. R. Buyya, C. S. Yeo, S. Venugopal, J. Broberg, and I. Brandic. 2009. Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Computer Systems 25, 6 (Jun. 2009), 599--616. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. Calheiros, R. Ranjan, A. Beloglazov, C. De Rose, and R. Buyya. 2011. CloudSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Software: Practice and Experience 41, 1 (January 2011), 23--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Cao, M. Andersson, C. Nyberg, and M. Kihl. 2003. Web server performance modeling using an M/G/1/K*PS queue. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Telecommunications (ICT’03), Vol. 2. 1501--1506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. E. Carlini, M. Coppola, P. Dazzi, L. Ricci, and G. Righetti. 2012. Cloud federations in contrail. In Proceedings of Euro-Par 2011: Parallel Processing Workshops, Michael Alexander et al. (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7155. Springer, Berlin, 159--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Cattell. 2010. Scalable SQL and NoSQL data stores. SIGMOD Record 39, 4 (May 2010), 12--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. CloudSuite. 2014. CloudSuite’s CloudStone. Retrieved from http://parsa.epfl.ch/cloudsuite/web.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. CSCC Workgroup. 2012. Practical Guide to Cloud Service Level Agreements Version 1.0. Technical Report. Cloud Standards Customer Council (CSCC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ebay. 2014. Ebay. (Feb. 3 2014). http://www.ebay.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Enstratius. 2014. Enstratius. Retrieved from https://www.enstratius.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. A. J. Ferrer, F. Hernández, J. Tordsson, E. Elmroth, A. Ali-Eldin, C. Zsigri, R. Sirvent, J. Guitart, R. Badia, K. Djemame, W. Ziegler, T. Dimitrakos, S. Nair, G. Kousiouris, K. Konstanteli, T. Varvarigou, B. Hudzia, A. Kipp, S. Wesner, M. Corrales, N. Forgó, T. Sharif, and C. Sheridan. 2012. OPTIMIS: A holistic approach to cloud service provisioning. Future Generation Computer Systems 28, 1 (2012), 66--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. Fowler. 2003. Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. Addison-Wesley Professional. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. GeoLite. 2014. GeoLite2 Free Downloadable Databases. Retrieved from http://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/legacy/geolite/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Google. 2014. Post-mortem for February 24th, 2010 Outage. Retrieved from https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/a7640a2743922dcf?pli=1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. N. Grozev and R. Buyya. 2012. Inter-Cloud architectures and application brokering: Taxonomy and survey. Software: Practice and Experience 44, 3 (2012), 369--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. N. Grozev and R. Buyya. 2013. Performance modelling and simulation of three-tier applications in cloud and multi-cloud environments. Computer Journal (in press) (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. IBM. 2013. IBM Takes Australian Open Data onto Private Cloud. Technical Report. IBM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. JClouds. 2014. JClouds. Retrieved from http://www.jclouds.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaavo. 2014. Kaavo. Retrieved from http://www.kaavo.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. M. Mao and M. Humphrey. 2012. A performance study on the VM startup time in the cloud. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD’12). 423--430. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. P. Mell and T. Grance. 2011. The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing. Special Publication 800-145. National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Microsoft. 2014. Windows Azure Service Disruption Update. Retrieved from http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2012/03/01/windows-azure-service-disruption-update.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. P. Pawluk, B. Simmons, M. Smit, M. Litoiu, and S. Mankovski. 2012. Introducing STRATOS: A cloud broker service. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD’12). IEEE. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. D. Petcu. 2013. Multi-Cloud: Expectations and current approaches. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multi-Cloud Applications and Federated Clouds (Multi-Cloud’13). ACM, New York, NY, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. D. Petcu, C. Crăciun, M. Neagul, S. Panica, B. Di Martino, S. Venticinque, M. Rak, and R. Aversa. 2011. Architecturing a sky computing platform. In Proceedings of the International Conference towards a Service-Based Internet (ServiceWave’10), Michel Cezon and Yaron Wolfsthal (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6569. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. PingER. 2014. Ping End-to-End Reporting. Retrieved from http://www-iepm.slac.stanford.edu/pinger/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. A. Ramirez. 2000. Three-tier architecture. Linux Journal 2000, 75, Article 7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. RightScale. 2014. RightScale. Retrieved from http://www.rightscale.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. A. Robertson, B. Wittenmark, and M. Kihl. 2003. Analysis and design of admission control in Web-server systems. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Vol. 1. 254--259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. RUBiS. 2014. RUBiS: Rice University Bidding System. Retrieved from http://rubis.ow2.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Scalr. 2014. Scalr. Retrieved from http://scalr.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Simple Cloud. 2012. Simple Cloud API. Retrieved from http://simplecloud.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC). 2002. TPC BENCHMARK W (Web Commerce). Specification, version 1.8. Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. J. Varia. 2011. Best practices in architecting cloud applications in the AWS cloud. In Cloud Computing: Principles and Paradigms, R. Buyya, J. Broberg, and A. M. Goscinski (Eds.). Wiley, 459--490.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Multi-Cloud Provisioning and Load Distribution for Three-Tier Applications

        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

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems
          ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems  Volume 9, Issue 3
          October 2014
          141 pages
          ISSN:1556-4665
          EISSN:1556-4703
          DOI:10.1145/2676689
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2014 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: 7 October 2014
          • Accepted: 1 June 2014
          • Revised: 1 April 2014
          • Received: 1 February 2014
          Published in taas Volume 9, Issue 3

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader