Abstract.

Many firms are adopting cloud computing to remotely access IT infrastruc -

ture while outsourcing administration to a third party. This architecture provider assures
service operation and maintenance while also providing administration functions by
web consoles. They provide solutions built on bare metal or virtualized platforms
(mainly virtual machines). Virtualization is a fundamental technology for executing
many applications and services concurrently. Virtual machines are utilized for recreat-
ing test environments in addition to efficiently enhancing the usage rate of bare metal
hardware. However, the rise of containers has been viewed as a boon to virtualization.
Container represents lightweight virtualization technology, which is quickly evolving
and playing an increasingly essential role in cloud computing. Containers provide sig-
nificant advantages over previous generations of virtualization technology. They are
quicker, lighter, and easier to maintain and automate than Virtual Machines (VMs).
They are gradually adding onto the technology of VMs in many typical cases. In this
paper, existing container placement algorithms in Cloudsim 4.0 are compared and ana-
lyzed in terms of average energy consumption, average active VM and average active
Physical Machine (PM). The First Fit Decreasing (FFD) container placement algorithm
outperforms all other container placement algorithms.

Keywords: Cloud Data Center, Cloud Computing, Containers, Virtualization,

Container Placement Algorithms, First Fit, First Fit Decreasing, Random, Most
Full, Least Full

1 Introduction

Cloud Computing (CC) facilities are anticipated to comprise the future Internet ar-
chitecture, given the advantages of virtualization and several of its accompanying in-
novations. CC is the delivery of computing resources (computing, storage, memory,
network etc.) to users on request via Internet. According to a utility charge model,
users only pay for the services they utilize [1]. Cloud facilities are frequently provided
in three service concepts: (1) Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), that is a computer pro-
cessing facility in which storage and resources are supplied via API and web portals;
(2) Platform as a Service (PaaS), that is a framework for enterprise applications deliv-
ered as facilities, such as database services. (3) Software as a Service (SaaS), which
provides applications as a service (e.g., Google services). The breadth of CC services
has raised user demand for them. However, as client demand has increased, CC firms
have been forced to expand their data centres to fulfil consumer demands. According
to Poess and Nambiar [2], the growth of CC data centres raises electricity usage, oper-
ating expenses, and emissions levels.
Virtualization is the foundation technology of CC. Traditionally, virtual machines
(VMs) have been used in CC to share available resources and offer isolated environ-
ments for users. In cloud architecture, several VMs, each with their own operating
system and services are deployed and operate concurrently on the same physical com-
puter. A more lightweight virtualization approach based on containers has recently
gained popularity. Fig 1 shows the comparison of virtualization and containerization.
2

Fig. 1. Comparison of virtualization and containerization

A container, as opposed to a standard VM, is a novel lightweight virtualization ap -

proach that encapsulates a task and its library requirements for performance at the op-
erating system level [3]. The Container as a Service (CaaS) approach is gaining trac-
tion and is anticipated to become a typical form of cloud service platform. CaaS aids
in the resolution of issues relating to the execution requirements of the environment in
which applications are designed and are expected to be executed [4]. It liberates the
application by eliminating dependencies and separating it from the PaaS specification
environment. Applications based on containers are flexible and may operate in any
ecosystem [5]. Containers, because they are lightweight, are faster to install than VMs
as they share the host OS. Unlike a cloud based on VM, there is a single OS with sep -
arate libraries for each software that executes on it [6]. Containerization is altering the
way industries operate because of its advantages like space and resource savings, per-
formance, cost effectiveness, portability, and energy efficiency during system startup.
These can run on bare metals, hypervisors, or cloud systems.
In spite of the advancement of technology, there still exists a significant amount of
resource wastage in cloud data centers [7]. Several efforts have been made by re-
searchers for the placement of VM and container. VM placement has been widely ex-
amined, as documented in [8], however the container placement issue has not been
examined properly. Furthermore, few studies have investigated both procedures as a
full solution for allocating containers to VMs and VMs to PMs to improve resource
usage and efficient energy consumption [9]. A smart container placement (CP) ap-
proach installs containers in as few VMs and active PMs as feasible, boosting effi-
cient utilization of resource and minimizing data center energy usage.

2. Literature Review

There have been various attempts to fix the container placement issue. In [10], the au-
thors approached this challenge as an Integer Linear Programming challenge. Their
approach takes into consideration the diversity including both VM and container re-
source categories. In the same vein, [11] found a way for solving the identical issue
by integrating the First-Fit method with a Linear Programming technique. The pre-
 3

sented prototype was contrasted against VM-based delivery and the First-Fit method.
Moreover, in [12] authors advocated the use of Fit-for-Packing, a deep learning-based
technique. They identified the issue as a multi-resource bin-packing issue. Without
considering the VMs, this technique simply transfers the near-optimal containers to
hosts. The authors of [13] are concerned with increasing energy efficiency for this
new placement paradigm, a framework for container consolidation on virtual ma-
chines. The authors have compared and assessed several algorithms. Performance is
measured by parameters like energy usage and average migration rate of container,
service level agreement breaches and the average number of VMs used. The authors
of [9] suggested a TMPSO technique for energy-aware container consolidation in
cloud data centres. Their experimental assessment using benchmark datasets reveal
that their suggested technique saves more energy than several current alternatives.
Within a single coherent consolidation process, they address both VM selection and
placement because data center's energy usage is mostly determined based on the ac-
tive PMs count. The developers of [14] utilize the Whale Optimization Algorithm
(WOA) to address two placement stages as a single optimal solution. The proposed
technique attempts to optimize PMs and VMs in a single search area. The suggested
approach is compared to current methods in various degrees of diverse situations. In
the suite of test scenarios, experimental findings reveal that the suggested strategy
outperforms the other methods. The authors in [15] employed the NSGA-II algorithm
to choose the best PMs with containers which required to be transferred at each stage
of redeployment. Following the discovery of these hosts, the First-Fit method is uti-
lized to map the migrating containers to the respective host PMs. The authors in [16]
approached the problem in two parts. To solve the container placement problem, they
utilized two methodologies to develop a genetic programming hyper heuristic with
handmade rules. The authors utilized the first approach to determine whether a con-
tainer should be assigned to a new or current VM. The subsequent approach is utilized
throughout the selection of VM or placement process. The authors then recommended
mapping VM to a PM with appropriate resources using the First-Fit approach.
The above-mentioned strategies for virtual machine placement produce the best
outcomes since they are based on bioinspired or evolutionary algorithms. These algo-
rithms produce the most optimum results and may be used for the problem of con-
tainer placement also. In this paper, existing similar algorithms in Cloudsim4.0 are
described and compared in terms of average usage of energy, average active VM and
average active PM.

3. Problem Statement
Containerization has been utilized for isolation in many applications because of its
lightweight, scalable, and highly portable qualities. Containerization is rapidly gaining
popularity due to its ease of use and high performance in delivering applications and
services. However, Container Placement (CP) problem that consists of submitting
containers to VMs must be properly done in order to utilise the available resources as
efficiently as possible. Efficient placement leads to a reduction in the number of VMs
4

that host has, hence a smaller number of hosts, leading to better energy utilization, in
turn, improving the operational costs and the environment.
In this paper, the basic, pre-existing container placement algorithms like First Fit
(FF), First Fit Decreasing (FFD), Random, Least Full (LF) and Most Full (MF) are
compared in terms of average usage of energy, average active VM and average active
PM. The section presents the problem statement in the cloud data center for CP that
aim to reduce data center energy consumption:

k + ( Pk - P k ) × U k,t
P k ( t ) = \{ Pidle max idle
N vm >0
0 N vm =0
(1)
𝑁𝑣𝑚: 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠
𝑁p𝑚: 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 physical 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠
𝑃𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑙𝑒: 𝑖𝑑𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑘
𝑃𝑘𝑚𝑎𝑥: 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑘

In order words, the power utilization can be minimized by reducing the active
physical machines (PMs) which is denoted by:
minimize N pm=∑ N vm pm k
k
(2)
Each VMi (1iN) has CPU capacity VCi , memory capacity VMemi and band-
width capacity VBi. Each Container j (1jM) has its CPU demand CCj, memory de-
mand CMemj and bandwidth demand CBj. The following constraints are considered
to minimize the utilization of power or reduce the active number of PMs [17].

M
y i=∑ x i , j ∀ i ∈ I
j=1
(3)

∑ x i , j=1 ∀ j∈ J
i=1
(4)
M

∑ CC J . x i , j ≤ VCi
j=1
(5)
M

∑ CMemJ . x i , j ≤VMemi
j=1
(6)
M

∑ CB J . x i , j ≤ VBi
j=1
(7)
 5

Eq. (3) determines whether a VM is used (yi=1) or not (yi=0). Constraint (4)
demonstrates that a container is exclusively assigned to one of the virtual machines.
Constraints (5), (6), and (7) specify the virtual machine's capacity constraints for the
CPU, memory, and bandwidth respectively. The constraints in equation (4), (5) and
(6) describes the resource capacity requested by container (i.e. requested CPU, re-
quested memory, requested bandwidth) is less than or equal to that of VM.

4. Methodology
This study proposes an ideal container placement to decrease the average active
VMs and average active PMs, hence lowering usage of energy in data centers. To de-
termine the number of VMs utilized, several scheduling methods such as First Fit (FF),
First Fit Decreasing (FFD), Random, Least Full (LF) and Most Full (MF) are com-
pared in terms of energy consumed, average active VMs and average active PMs.
RAM is fixed at 80%, maximum bandwidth is fixed at 80% and maximum CPU utiliz-
ation is fixed at 90% in all the algorithms.

4.1 First Fit (FF) Container Placement Algorithm

In functional analysis, bin packing is an algorithmic issue that includes storing
things using the fewest number of boxes possible. It may be used in IT for things like
file storage on IT support, efficiency difficulties, and so on. The FF method is one of
the oldest memory management strategies. This method arranges the bins in the order
of first in, first served (FIFO). The best-suited VM available can be used for the alloca-
tion of containers on VM.
Algorithm 1: First Fit Container (FF) Placement Algorithm
1. Begin
2. Input (ContainerList, VMList)
4. Maxram = VMRam
Maxbw = total bandwidth capacity of VMs
Maxcpu = total CPU capacity of VMs
5. For container in containerList
6. For VM in VMList
VMRam estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxram
VMCPU estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxcpu
VMbw estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxbw
7. Allocate (VM, Container)
8. End For
9. End For

4.2 First Fit Decreasing (FFD) Container Placement Algorithm

For container placement, the First-Fit Decreasing algorithm (FFD) is used which
involves sorting the containers in descending order on the basis of their RAM capacit-
ies in order to assign them to the VM while staying within its memory capacity limit. If
6

the first VM does not contain a place, the algorithm moves on to the next VM, and so
on. Algorithm 2 presents the pseudo-code for container placement using FFD.
Algorithm 2: First Fit Decreasing (FFD) Container Placement Algorithm
1. Begin
2. Input (ContainerList, VMList)
3. Arrange containers in descending order based on the
RAM required
4. Maxram = VMRam
Maxbw = total bandwidth capacity of VMs
Maxcpu = total CPU capacity of VMs
5. For container in containerList
6. For VM in VMList
VMRam estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxram
VMCPU estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxcpu
VMbw estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxbw
7. Allocate (VM, Container)
8. End For
9. End For

4.3 Random Container Placement Algorithm

Containers are assigned at random to VMs. The pseudo-code of container place-
ment with random allocation is presented in algorithm 3.
Algorithm 3: Random Container Placement Algorithm
1. Begin
2. Input (containerList, VMList)
3. Maxram = VMRam
4. Maxbw = total bandwidth capacity of VMs
5. Maxcpu = total CPU capacity of VMs
4. For container in ContainerList
5. For VM in VMList
6. VMRam estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxram
VMCPU estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxcpu
VMbw estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxbw
7. Allocate (VM, Container)
8. End For
10. End For

4.4 Least Full (LF) Container Placement Algorithm

The container is assigned to the VM with the most available resources, i.e., the
least full VM among all current VMs. For example, VM 1 and VM 2 have 18637 and
15000 available MIPS, respectively, while the container needs 10000 MIPS. Accord-
ing to the Least Full allocation policy, the container will be moved to VM 1.
Algorithm 4: Least Full (LF) Container Placement Algorithm
 7

1. Begin
2. Input (ContainerList, VMList)
3. Maxram = VMRam
Maxbw = total bandwidth capacity of VMs
Maxcpu = total CPU capacity of VMs
4. For container in containerList
5. For VM in VMList
Arrange VMs in descending order on the basis of available MIPS.
VMRam estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxram
VMCPU estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxcpu
VMbw estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxbw
6. Allocate (VM, Container)
7. End For
8. End For

4.5 Most Full (MF) Container Placement Algorithm

Container is assigned to the VM with the most available but limited resources, i.e.
the most full VM among all current VMs. For example, VM 1 and VM 2 have 18637
and 15000 available MIPS, respectively, while the container needs 10000 MIPS. Ac-
cording to the Most Full allocation policy, the container will be moved to VM 2.
Algorithm 5: Most Full (MF) Container Placement Algorithm
1. Begin
2. Input (ContainerList, VMList)
3. Maxram = VMRam
Maxbw = total bandwidth capacity of VMs
Maxcpu = total CPU capacity of VMs
4. For container in containerList
5. For VM in VMList
Arrange VMs in ascending order based on the basis of available MIPS
VMRam estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxram
VMCPU estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxcpu
VMbw estimate (VM, Container) <= Maxbw
6. Allocate (VM, Container)
7. End For
8. End For

5. Results

Scenario 1: Homogenous Environment

In this case, a data center is simulated with 20 homogenous servers and 60 VMs. A
total of 200 containers are used which belong to 3 different types. The configurations
of the PMs are shown in table 1 and that of VMs & containers are shown in table 2.

Table 1: PM configurations in homogenous environment

8

Physical Machine Configurations and Power Models (Homogenous Environment)

Type of CPU [3GHz] (37274 Memory P idle P max

Number
Server MIPS/core) (GB) (Watt) (Watt)
1 8 Core 128 93 135 20
Table 2: VM & container configurations in homogenous environment

Type of Containers (200 Containers) and VMs (Homogenous Environment)

Type of CPU[1.5GHz]
CPU MIPS Memory Type Memory
Con- (18636 MIPS/ Number
(1 Core) (MB) of VM (GB)
tainer core)
1 4658 128
2 9320 256 1 2 2 60
3 18636 512

Scenario 2: Heterogenous Environment

In this case, a data center is simulated with 20 heterogenous servers and 60 VMs
with the set of 3 different servers and 4 different types of VMs. A total of 200 con -
tainers are used which belong to 3 different types as that of in homogenous environ-
ment. The configurations of the PMs are shown in table 3 and that of VMs & contain -
ers are shown in table 4. Table 5 shows the comparison of average energy consump-
tion for different container placement algorithms. Fig 2 shows the comparison of the
existing container placement algorithms in terms of average energy consumption.
FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average energy consumption
in homogenous environment by 15.25%, 40.96%, 11.72% and 4.31% respectively.
FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average energy consumption
in heterogenous environment by 17.28%, 41.77%, 14.04% and 4.44% respectively.
Fig 2 shows the comparison of the existing container placement algorithms in terms
of average active VM.

PM Configurations and Power Models

(Heterogenous Environment)
Type of CPU[3GHz] Memory P idle Pmax Number
Server (37274 MIPS/ (GB) (Watt) (Watt)
core)
1 4 Core 64 86 117 7
2 8 Core 128 93 135 7
3 16 Core 256 66 247 6
Table 3: PMs configurations in heterogenous environment

Table 4: VMs & container configurations in heterogeneous environment

Types of Containers (200 Containers) and VMs

Type of CPU MIPS Memory Type CPU Memory
Number
Container (1 core) (MB) of [1.5GHz] (GB)
 9

(18636
VM MIPS /
core)
1 4658 128 1 2 1 15
2 9320 256 2 4 2 15
3 1 4 15
3 18636 512
4 8 8 15
Table 5: Average energy consumption for different container placement algorithms.

Algorithm Homogenous Heterogenous

First Fit 26957.87847 28758.67876
Random 38695.34355 40854.34988
First Fit Decreasing 22845.25669 23788.43569
Least Full 25879.69873 27675.54659
Most Full 23874.32456 24895.54699

Fig 2: Comparison of average energy consumption (left) and average active VM

(right) for different container placement algorithms.

Table 6 shows the average active VM comparison for different container place-
ment algorithms.
Table 6: Average active VM
Algorithm Homogenous Heterogenous
First Fit 12 14
Random 30 32.5
First Fit Decreasing 5 6
Least Full 8 10
Most Full 7 8

FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average active VM in ho-

mogenous environment by 58.33%, 83.33%, 37.5% and 28.57% respectively. FFD
outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average active VM in heterogenous
environment by 57.14%, 81.53%, 40% and 25% respectively. Table 7 shows the aver-
age active PM among various placement algorithm
10

Table 7: Average active PM

Algorithm Homogenous Heterogenous
First Fit 5 6.5
Random 7 10.75
First Fit Decreasing 2 3
Least Full 5 5
Most Full 4 4

Fig 3 shows the comparison of the existing container placement algorithms in

terms of average active PM.

Fig 3: Comparison of average active PM for different container placement algo-

rithms.
FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average active PM in ho-
mogenous environment by 60%, 71.42%, 60% and 50% respectively. FFD outper-
forms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average active PM in heterogenous envi -
ronment by 53.84%, 72.09%, 40% and 25% respectively.

6. Future Work and Conclusion

The container represents lightweight virtualization technology, which is quickly

evolving and playing an increasingly essential role in cloud computing. Container
technology is driving the transition of Container as a Service (CaaS), necessitating an
optimal container administration strategy. Due to the increased quantity of servers and
services, energy usage in data centers is currently a serious issue. Physical servers are
big energy users that operate continually to assure service reliability via virtual in-
stances. The positioning of these instances as containers in hosts influences energy us-
age. The assurance of efficient placement without wasting host resources, in particu-
lar, allows for a decrease in the number of active hosts and hence a reduction in en-
ergy use. In this paper, different container placement algorithms are compared based
on the energy consumption, active VM and active PM in Cloudsim 4.0 simulation en-
vironment. The algorithms have been tested for homogenous and heterogenous envi-
ronments. FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average energy con-
sumption in homogenous environment by 15.25%, 40.96%, 11.72% and 4.31% re-
spectively. Also, FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average ac-
 11

tive VM in homogenous environment by 58.33%, 83.33%, 37.5% and 28.57% respec-

tively. FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average active PM in
homogenous environment by 60%, 71.42%, 60% and 50% respectively. In heteroge-
nous environment, FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average en-
ergy consumption in heterogenous environment by 17.28%, 41.77%, 14.04% and
4.44% respectively. FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average
active VM in heterogenous environment by 57.14%, 81.53%, 40% and 25% respec-
tively. FFD outperforms FF, Random, LF and MF in terms of average active PM in
heterogenous environment by 53.84%, 72.09%, 40% and 25% respectively. The fu-
ture work includes the implementation of the optimized metaheuristic algorithm for
container placement in order to minimize the energy consumption of the data center
by reducing the active PMs.

References

1. Patidar, S., Rane, D. & Jain, P. A survey paper on cloud computing. Proceedings -
2012 2nd International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication
Technologies, ACCT 2012 394–398 (2012) doi:10.1109/ACCT.2012.15.
2. Poess, M. & Nambiar, R. O. Energy cost, the key challenge of today’s data centers.
Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 1, 1229–1240 (2008).
3. Katal, A., Dahiya, S. & Choudhury, T. Energy efficiency in cloud computing data
center: a survey on hardware technologies. Cluster Computing 2021 25:1 25, 675–705
(2021).
4. Sturm, R., Pollard, C. & Craig, J. Managing Containerized Applications. Application
Performance Management (APM) in the Digital Enterprise 177–185 (2017)
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804018-8.00013-9.
5. Xavier, M. G. et al. Performance Evaluation of Container-based Virtualization for
High Performance Computing Environments. Proceedings of the 2013 21st Euromi-
cro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed, and Network-Based Process-
ing, PDP 2013 233–240 (2017) doi:10.48550/arxiv.1709.10140.
6. Katal, A., Dahiya, S. & Choudhury, T. Energy efficiency in cloud computing data
centers: a survey on software technologies. Cluster Computing 1–31 (2022)
doi:10.1007/S10586-022-03713-0/FIGURES/3.
7. Dayarathna, M., Wen, Y. & Fan, R. Data center energy consumption modeling: A
survey. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 18, 732–794 (2016).
8. Cao, Z. & Dong, S. An energy-aware heuristic framework for virtual machine consol-
idation in Cloud computing. The Journal of Supercomputing 2014 69:1 69, 429–451
(2014).
9. Shi, T., Ma, H. & Chen, G. Energy-Aware Container Consolidation Based on PSO in
Cloud Data Centers. 2018 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2018 -
Proceedings (2018) doi:10.1109/CEC.2018.8477708.
10. Nardelli, M., Hochreiner, C. & Schulte, S. Elastic provisioning of virtual machines for
container deployment. ICPE 2017 - Companion of the 2017 ACM/SPEC International
Conference on Performance Engineering 5–10 (2017) doi:10.1145/3053600.3053602.
 12

11. Boukadi, K., Grati, R., Rekik, M. & Abdallah, H. ben. From VM to container: A lin-
ear program for outsourcing a business process to cloud containers. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 10573 LNCS, 488–504 (2017).
12. Nanda, S. & Hacker, T. J. RACC: Resource-aware container consolidation using a
deep learning approach. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Machine Learning for
Computing Systems, MLCS 2018 - In conjunction with HPDC (2018)
doi:10.1145/3217871.3217876.
13. Piraghaj, S. F., Dastjerdi, A. V., Calheiros, R. N. & Buyya, R. A Framework and Al-
gorithm for Energy Efficient Container Consolidation in Cloud Data Centers. 2015
IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Data Intensive Systems (DSDIS)
368–375 (2015) doi:10.1109/DSDIS.2015.67.
14. Al-Moalmi, A., Luo, J., Salah, A., Li, K. & Yin, L. A whale optimization system for
energy-efficient container placement in data centers. Expert Syst Appl 164, 113719
(2021).
15. Portaluri, G., Giordano, S., Kliazovich, D. & Dorronsoro, B. A power efficient ge-
netic algorithm for resource allocation in cloud computing data centers. 2014 IEEE
3rd International Conference on Cloud Networking, CloudNet 2014 58–63 (2014)
doi:10.1109/CLOUDNET.2014.6968969.
16. Tan, B., Ma, H. & Mei, Y. A Hybrid Genetic Programming Hyper-Heuristic Ap-
proach for Online Two-level Resource Allocation in Container-based Clouds. 2019
IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2019 - Proceedings 2681–2688
(2019) doi:10.1109/CEC.2019.8790220.
17. Liu, X. F., Zhan, Z. H., Du, K. J. & Chen, W. N. Energy aware virtual ma -
chine placement scheduling in cloud computing based on ant colony opti-
mization approach. GECCO 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Genetic and Evo-
lutionary Computation Conference 41–47 (2014)
doi:10.1145/2576768.2598265.