Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

J. Parallel Distrib. Comput.

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpdc

Hybridization of firefly and Improved Multi-Objective Particle Swarm

Optimization algorithm for energy efficient load balancing in Cloud
Computing environments
A. Francis Saviour Devaraj a , Mohamed Elhoseny b , S. Dhanasekaran a , E. Laxmi Lydia c ,
∗
K. Shankar d ,
a
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and education, India
b
Faculty of Computers and Information, Mansoura University, Egypt
c
Computer Science and Engineering, Vignan’s Institute of Information Technology (Autonomous), India
d
Department of Computer Applications, Alagappa University, Karaikudi, India

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Load balancing, in Cloud Computing (CC) environment, is defined as the method of splitting workloads
Received 23 January 2020 and computing properties. It enables the enterprises to manage workload demands or application
Received in revised form 12 March 2020 demands by distributing the resources among computers, networks or servers. In this research article,
Accepted 18 March 2020
a new load balancing algorithm is proposed as a hybrid of firefly and Improved Multi-Objective Particle
Available online 11 April 2020
Swarm Optimization (IMPSO) technique, abbreviated as FIMPSO. This technique deploys Firefly (FF)
Keywords: algorithm to minimize the search space where as the IMPSO technique is implemented to identify the
Cloud computing enhanced response. The IMPSO algorithm works by selecting the global best (gbest) particle with a
Firefly small distance of point to a line. With the application of minimum distance from a point to a line, the
Load balancing gbest particle candidates could be elected. The proposed FIMPSO algorithm achieved effective average
Task scheduling load for making and enhanced the essential measures like proper resource usage and response time
IMPSO of the tasks. The simulation outcome showed that the proposed FIMPSO model exhibited an effective
performance when compared with other methods. From the simulation outcome, it is understood that
the FIMPSO algorithm yielded an effective result with the least average response time of 13.58ms,
maximum CPU utilization of 98%, memory utilization of 93%, reliability of 67% and throughput of 72%
along with a make span of 148, which was superior to all the other compared methods.
© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction technique to schedule the input requests as well as control the

Cloud Computing (CC) is a rapidly developing concept in the
domain of distributed computing which could be applied in di-
verse fields such as data storage, data analysis and IoT appli-
cations [10]. CC is an advanced technology that can change the
way how traditional businesses work. It offers various facilities
to registered clients in the form of online services which like to
avoid user investment in computing architecture. Some of the
services by CC are Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Software-as-
a-Service (SaaS) and Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) [17]. For every
service, a user should request the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) via
internet. The CSP has to manage the resources in order to satisfy
the requests received from clients. SP leverages the scheduling
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: saviodev@gmail.com (A. Francis Saviour Devaraj),
mohamed_elhoseny@mans.edu.eg (M. Elhoseny), srividhans@gmail.com
(S. Dhanasekaran), elaxmi2002@yahoo.com (E. Laxmi Lydia),
drkshankar@ieee.org (K. Shankar).
processing resource in an effective manner. Task scheduling and
resource management provide high economic rate and resource
application until the specified limits. The main barriers in the
utilization of CC operations are allocating and scheduling the
resources. In order to overcome these complexities, many re-
searchers showed their interest in task scheduling process in CC.
The main work of task scheduling is to organize the input request
in a definite way so that every resource is utilized in an efficient
manner. Each service is provided to numerous clients and several
tasks might be executed at the same time. If the system does not
apply scheduling method, then it results in longer waiting time
for the process to be performed. Unfortunately, few requests get
terminated due to long waiting time that exceeded the maximum
limit. While scheduling is carried out, the concern scheduler is
required to monitor some of the limitations such as behavior of
the task, size of the request, execution time of the task, available
resource and the load induced on the resources.
Task scheduling is the main problem involved in CC. The merit
involved in CC is its efficient usage of all the resources which

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2020.03.022
0743-7315/© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45
can occur only when the task scheduling is carried out properly
[2]. Hence, both task scheduling and resource allocation have
been considered as mandatory operations for all processes to
be performed. At present, people using internet could gather
information from any location at any time without any idea about
the host structure. These kinds of hosting infrastructures include
different systems and abilities which are controlled by CSP. CC
improves the potentials of host infrastructure that can make
use of internet services. CSP gains efficiency through facilitating
the clients by making use of Cloud Services (CS). Clients apply
the CS to employ the whole processing services from software
to hardware. The services offered in CC follow the pay-as-you-
go model. The utilization of resources may increase or decrease
depending on the CSP users and their demand for applications. It
is considered as a merit of CC though it comes with additional
cost. The CS user can choose different services based on the
application required. However, this freedom of optional service
may lead to challenging issues that needs to be detected properly.
CC research has two main parts namely task scheduling and
resource allocation. The efficient usage of the resource is based on
scheduling and load balancing techniques to avoid the arbitrary
allocation of sources. CC aims at resolving difficult operations
using scheduling techniques.
Load balancing and task scheduling are important players in
CC environment; thus, the current research work proposes out
a novel technique in order to obtain better results with the
help of hybridizing firefly and Improved Multi-Objective Particle
Swarm Optimization (IMPSO) technique, abbreviated as, FIMPSO.
It applies Firefly (FF) algorithm to minimize the search space
whereas the IMPSO technique is implemented to identify the
enhanced response. IMPSO works by selecting the global best
(gbest) particle with a small distance of point to the line. With the
application of minimum distance from a point to line, the gbest
particle candidates could be elected. The simulation outcome
from the proposed model was found to be too optimized when
compared with alternate models [1,3,12,16,24].
The upcoming sections are planned as follows. Relevant stud-
ies are discussed in Section 2. The proposed FIMPSO algorithm
is described in Section 3 and validated in Section 4. At last, the
conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
2. Related works
Cloud Computing (CC) is described as a virtual distributed
computing that shares the maximum resources among its cus-
tomers across a large area with the help of internet. The resources
could be requested and applied by many cloudlets simultane-
ously. Clients can access the centralized resource at anytime,
any where over the internet. In the literature [5], a CloudSim
simulator was proposed to simulate the cloudlets on virtual sys-
tem. The load balancers allocate the cloudlets’ functions on data
centers, while the whole workload and few classes present in
scheduling are explained. Buyya et al. [26] followed a principle to
schedule the works from one particle to another as mentioned.
This scheduling process depends upon the energy of a node in
managing the workload. If the load is passed on to the Virtual Ma-
chines (VM), it results in underbalanced nodes. Khiyaita et al. [15]
described various models, their importance and the algorithms of
load balancing to resolve the issues because of the imbalanced
node.
Load scheduling is the process of allocating and operating
cloudlets on VM in an optimal way to decrease the compu-
tational cost. It is applied to decrease the transfer time, time
taken for waiting, response time, execution time in addition
to the operational cost. Chaudhary and Kumar [6] opined that
scheduling might be dynamic or static while allocating the load
37
as depicted in the table analysis. Dynamic techniques apply bio-
inspired algorithms for scheduling the workloads. The swarm-
based algorithms are employed to allocate load in CC in order to
fix the consecutive objects based on the velocity and location of
particles. There are merits and demerits associated with different
load balancing techniques. The scheduling model is enhanced
with round robin algorithm. This task scheduling process works
on the basis of meta-heuristic models. The roulette selection
model, based on random scheduling, is determined after several
iterations and fitness values. The static algorithm does not come
under the category of meta-heuristic technique to manage the
load in cloud. This technique incurs low operational cost when
compared to primitive models such as First Come First Serve
(FCFS) and Round Robin scheduling. Kennedy and Eberhart [13]
presented a meta-heuristic approach called Particle Swarm Opti-
mization (PSO). This work depends on a set of particle methods
that follow a flock of birds to transform from one source to
another. The optimal position in search space has relied on the
velocity of the previous particle. In 11 scheduling techniques,
the static and alternate models of GA, SA, Min–Min, Max–Min,
Tabu Search and so on are described. Pacini et al. [18] discussed
the operation of swarm optimization that resulted in improved
solutions.
In the literature [27], a constraint-based PSO scheme was
used to allocate the tasks in sequential nodes. Under the appli-
cation of CC platform, the PSO algorithm was described in the
literature [19]. The appropriate particle is evaluated through the
fitness function. Then, the velocity of a particle is obtained by
the particle’s best position (pbest) in process and global best
position (gbest) in a swarm. When compared to existing works
and relevant algorithms, it reduces the total cost of computation.
It concentrates on the concurrence of Ant Colony Optimization
(ACO) technique. As the name itself describes, it discusses about
the role of an ant while it finds its food. It offers the application
of a PSO algorithm to distribute the resources on VM in the cloud.
Garg and Buyya [8] signified the Network Simulator to sched-
ule each load from the system. The study deployed PSO for
scheduling cloudlets based on VMs in CloudSim, which depends
upon a group of particles in search space. A new searching mech-
anism was introduced based on Newton’s law of gravity named
‘Gravitational Search Algorithm’ (GSA). It did not consider the op-
eration of storing optimal positions for future applications. Here,
the fitness value can be used to compute the size of the particle.
The location of the secondary particle is nothing but a sum of
velocity and position of the existing particle. GSA is employed
in filter modeling functions. The force could be measured using
gravitational constant which is a significant one. The application
of fuzzy segmentation, based on gravitational searching model,
was done in the literature [11] from a collection of satellite
images in order to identify the information.
In the previous study [20], noise filtering ultrasound images
were used to assess the GSA model. The novel element through
Binary Gravitational Search Algorithm (BGSA) was presented to
optimize the scheduling operation which is produced from vari-
ous platforms. A hybrid GSA was introduced in the literature [14]
using orthogonal crossover as well as pattern searching to sched-
ule the load in CC environment. Two efficient GSA optimization
schemes were developed in the previous study [23] to improve
the diversity of particles and utilize the memory models in math-
ematical calculations. It established security measures on the
basis of behavioral graphs and implied the concentration on load
balance as well as service allotment in the CC platform. The
GSA depends upon repulsive and attractive forces to resolve the
optimization issue.
There are recent works conducted in this research arena [4,21,
22,25] in which the study [4] proposed PROUD, a new approach
38 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45

Table 1
Summary of related works.
Reference Objective Algorithm used
[6] Deployed a scheduling algorithm for load allocation in a dynamic or static way Swarm intelligence techniques, Roulette selection
[13] Developed a scheduling technique in CC environment PSO algorithm
[18] Analysis of different algorithms Swarm intelligence techniques
[27] To allocate the tasks in sequential nodes Constraint-based PSO scheme
[8] For scheduling cloudlets based on VMs in CloudSim PSO algorithm
[14] Developed a scheduling technique in CC environment Hybrid GSA using orthogonal crossover

to secure the outsource data designcryption procedure for edge

servers to lessen the computational overhead on the client side.
Besides, a new CLoud scientific wOrkflowSchedUlingalgoRithm
based on attack–defensE game model (CLOSURE) [25] was also
proposed in the literature. Table 1 summarizes the reviewed
works in terms of its objective and underlying algorithms. Though
there are several works available in the literature, some of the
methods do not consider the characteristics of CC environment
yet it needs to improve the performance in several aspects.

3. Proposed system

The proposed FIMPSO algorithm involves the hybridization

of FF and IMPSO algorithms. The presented FIMPSO algorithm
reaches the effective average load for making and enhances the
essential measures such as proper resource usage and response
time of the tasks. In the following subsections, the processes
involved in the proposed algorithm are discussed in detail.

3.1. FF algorithm

The proposed model is established as a Hybrid of FF and IMPSO

which is explained briefly. Generally, the FF technique is classified
into three premises [7]:

1. Every FF belongs to the same gender. Only the opposite sex

attracts each other.
2. In fireflies, the attraction is corresponding to brightness
i.e., a lower brightened FF would be consumed by a high
intensified FF. Hence the attraction and brightness of a FF Fig. 1. Flowchart of FF algorithm.
are reduced when the distance gets increased between the
fireflies. If a FF is not brighter when compared to a specific
fly, then it moves randomly in such a way that no flies are The moving FF i against the brighter FF j is implied by the
attracted. following equation:
3. An objective function is used to compute the brightness of 2
xi = xi + β0 e−γ r
( )
fireflies. xj − xi + ∝ (4)
FF could move using three levels such as:
The process involved in FF algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 1. The
fundamental concepts involved in FF algorithm are light intensity • The present state of FF,
and attraction. • Fixed absorption value with the application of high intensi-
Fireflies’ attraction is measured by defining its intensity, fied FF,
whereas the brightness is acquired from an objective function • The random movement is defined by α and identical distri-
while optimizing an issue. Light intensity and attraction are esti- bution is in the interval [0, 1].
mated through the equations where I0 and β0 denote brightness
and attraction respectively. 3.2. IMPSO algorithm
−γ r 2
I = I0 e (1)
The flowchart of the proposed technique for IMPSO algorithm
−γ r 2
β0 = β0 e (2) is depicted in Fig. 2. The steps involved in IMPSO algorithm are
given below.
The distance among the fireflies i in the place xi and j in position
xj are denoted by Euclidean distance formula, where xik indicates (1) Initialization of PSO;
the FF position i in spatial dimension k:
 (a) Fix a swarm set number J as well as particle dimension
 d D;
⏐⏐ ⏐⏐  ∑( )2
rij − xi − xj = √
⏐⏐ ⏐ ⏐ xik − xjk (3) (b) Set a computation range for variable U(l) values
k=1 i.e., U(l) mn and U(l)mx ;
 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45 39

Fig. 2. Flowchart of IMPSO algorithm.

(c) Particle speed control, variable v ar(l) mx = U(l) mx − (4) Particle position initialization: pbest(l) = U(l) and gbest (l) =
U(l) mx ; Best particle found in U(l)
(d) Position of swarm and initialization of speed, random (5) Archive initialization
particle formation, U(l), v ar(l), l = 1, 2, M. Save the non-dominated solutions which are identified in
U into archive
(2) Parameter evolution; (6) If iterations does not accomplish z mx

(a) Max Iterations z mx ; (b) Explore gbest (l) from archive

(b) Higher and lower inertia weight, value as ω mn = Line Im solver for non-dominated particle U (m) from
0.4, ω mx = 0.9; archive.
(c) Training factors tl and t2 , t1 = g = 2. Distance dlm from U(l) to line Im .
If dlk = mn {dlm }, particle k in archive would be
(3) Evaluation of objective function declared as the GBG, glbest = U (k).
For l = 1 to J (J is the population size) (c) Updating the position as well as particle speed
For k = 1 to I (I is objective function numbers) v arz +1 (l) = ω × v arz (l) + tl R1 (pbestz (l) − Uz (l))
(a) Compute fk (ul ) + t2 R2 (gbestz (l) − Uz (l)) (6)
(b) Particle generalization Uz+1 (l) = Uz (l) + v arz (l),
where z denotes the number of iterations whereas Rl
fk (ul ) − mn fk (ul )
fk′ (ul ) = . (5) and R2 represent the random values in the range of
mx fk (ul ) − mn fk (ul ) [0 . . . 1].
40 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45

If U(l) expands over the boundaries, then it is combined which is composed of maximum CD values. Different guides are
by fixing the decision parameter which is similar to selected for all the particles from particular portion of a dataset.
the value of corresponding lower or upper boundary Thus, the GBG could be selected with the assistance of CD value;
while the velocity is increased by −1. Hence it finds however, it is a random selection process [9]. In order to resolve
the opposite direction. the demerits involved in MDPL-MPOSO, FIMPSO is proposed to
(d) Perform mutation on (l). identify the global best guidance for every particle. The funda-
(e) Calculate U(l) mental model named Minimum Distance of Point to Line (MDPL)
(f) Update the archive is established. Afterwards, it computes the global best guide for
If the particles are not dominated by recorded solu-
all particles in population. In 2D system, a straight line L can
tions, then it introduces new non-dominated solutions
be identified with the help of origin point O(0, 0) and anypoint
in U within the archive. Every solution present in the
H(a, b). Line L is described below:
archive is dominated by a novel solution. Once the
archive is completed, a replaced solution must be com- x y
= (7)
puted on the basis of CD value. a b
The personal best solution for all the particles present Point P(x0 , y0 ) is external line L, distance d between the points p
in U should be upgraded. If the present pbest (l) domi-
and line L is explained as follows
nates the location in memory, then the position of the
particle is updated with the function of pbest (l) = U(l). |bx0 − ay0 |
d= √ (8)
(g) Improved iteration value z a2 + b 2
(7) Cycle value gets improved until the iteration requirements Likewise, the 3-D coordinate system has a straight line which is
are attained. generated by origin point O(0, 0, 0) and any point H(a, b, c) as
described by
3.3. Global best guide (GBG) x y z
= = (9)
a b c
As declared earlier, some essential MOPSO techniques exist.
In every technique, there is a suggestion to discover the GBG. Point P(x0 , y0 , z0 ) is an exterior line L, distance d between the
In this division, several techniques, benefits, and drawbacks are points p and line L is mentioned by:
considered after which a novel technique is begun to discover the ⏐⇀
⏐
⇀ ⏐
⏐
GBG. ⏐OP × OH ⏐
⏐ ⏐
d=
⏐⇀⏐
⏐ ⏐
3.3.1. Multi-objective PSO ⏐OH ⏐
Here, the objective spaces are separated into hyper-cubes ⏐ ⏐
prior to the selection of GBG to every particle. Then, a fitness √
value is allotted for every hypercube based upon the number (cy0 − bz0 )2 + (cx0 − az0 )2 + (bx0 − ay0 )2
= √ (10)
of elite particles inside it. If the elite particles are hypercube, a2 + b2 + c 2
then the fitness value is lesser comparatively. Next, the selected
By utilizing the basic model of a distance of point to line with
roulette-wheel is executed for the hypercube while one is chosen.
regard to the objective space, the identification of GBG gbest
At last, GBG is an arbitrary particle selected from the chosen
between the collection members to particle l of 2 objective op-
hypercube. Consequently, GBG is chosen by making use of the
roulette-wheel chosen technique arbitrarily. Probably, a particle timized populations is as follows.
does not choose a proper guide as its global guide. First, a line Im is drawn of the point H (m) with coordi-
nates (f1m , f2m ) in 2-objective spaces. U (m) is the connected
3.3.2. Multi-objective Optimization using dynamic neighborhood PSO non-dominated particle in store. Im is described as pursues:
This method applies a dynamic neighborhood strategy. This fl f2
research article reveals the concept of two-objective optimiza- = (m = 1, 2, . . . , J ) . (11)
f1m f2m
tions; the GBG of a particle is identified in objective space. Ini-
tially, the distance from particle l, as well as other alternate In the 2nd, the distance dlm is computed from point P(l) by
particles, are evaluated with respective values, which is termed co-ordinates (f1l , f2l ) in the objective space store to the popula-
as fixed objective, where the ‘k’ local neighbors are found on the tion particle U(l) to line Im (m = 1, 2, . . . , J ). dlm is described as
basis of distance of calculation. Then the local optima between pursues:
other neighbors are measured using second objective value and
is named as GBG ??l???????? for particle l. Therefore, it consists of |f2m f1l − f1m f2l |
dlm = √ (m = 1, 2, . . . , J , m ̸= l) . (12)
fixed objective selection which is conducted utilizing the prior 2
f1m 2
+ f2m
knowledge of objective functions. While the 1-D optimization
technique is helpful in handling multi-objective functions. Hence, At last, the store particle U (k) is regarded as glbest = U (k) with
the selection of GBG is based on single objective function. respect to optimized output as distance dlk from P(l) to stores line
Ik is the smallest. dlk is described as follows
3.3.3. Crowding Distance in Multi-objective PSO (CD-MOPSO)
Crowding Distance value offers an estimation about the solu- dlk = mn {dlm |m = 1, 2, . . . , j} . (13)
tion’s density which is surrounded by it. Initially, an enveloped
archive records the independent solutions that are identified in In every particle through the smallest distance to the line of the
prior iterations. The non-dominated solutions are employed as records, the member should choose the part which records the
GBG of the particles in swarm. Then, the solutions present in member as the GBG. Consequently, MDPL-MOPSO could establish
archives are filtered by reducing the CD value. Consequently, a generally-suitable guide as its global guide to every particle in
the GBG of a particle is chosen among non-dominated solutions the population.
 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45
3.4. Hybridization of FIMPSO algorithm
The proposed model is a combination of FF and IMPSO tech-
niques. Both response speed and accuracy can be improved in
this new approach and is deemed to be very effective. The fea-
ture of the FF technique is composed of maximum convergence;
however it gets decreased in the exploration process. Later, the
IMPSO technique is incorporated with improved sensitivity in
the beginning phase. Therefore, the random behavior of particles
in IMPSO results in the sensitivity of primary population. If the
initial population is not selected properly, then the algorithm
could not attain an optimal solution. To obtain good result in this
case, the presented model should initialize the optimized popu-
lation which is achieved by the application of FF algorithm.The
evaluation function is described as follows:
( )
ti − tmin ci − cmin
1− αti × + αci ×
tmax − tmin cmax − cmin
Where:
• tmin : Minimum run time,
• tmax : Maximum run time,
• cmin : Minimum input time,
• cmax : Maximum input time.
At this point, every implemented procedure is estimated to
choose an optimal execution order. In order to schedule var-
ious operations, FIMPSO technique has obtained two different
attributes as input i.e., Arrival time and run time. The estimated
measure is explained by:
( )
ti − tmin ci − cmin
1 − αti × + αci ×
tmax − tmin cmax − cmin
4. Performance validation
The proposed FIMPSO algorithm was simulated using MATLAB
tool. Every task had its login time and run time, which under went
arbitrary initialization and was offered using Job shop software.
For comparison purposes, a set of algorithms namely Round Robin
(RR), First Come First Service (FCFS), Short jobs First (SJF) and
Genetic Algorithm (GA) were employed. Moreover, the set of
measures used to investigate the results were execution time,
resource utilization, reliability, make span and throughput.
4.1. Implementation setup
Table 2 shows the size of various synthetic datasets along with
the number of tasks linked to it. The table shows that the extra
large task consists of 800–1000 tasks and the size of the tasks is in
the range of 100000–200000MI. Similarly, the large task consists
of 600–700 tasks whereas the size of the tasks is in the range
of 70000–100000MI. Likewise, the medium-sized task consists of
400–500 tasks with task sizes ranging between 50000–70000MI.
In the same way, the small-sized task consists of 100–200 tasks
with 30000-50000MI sized tasks. [7]. In addition, the task sizes
were created in a random fashion during run time and the size
is defined by Millions of Instructions (MI). Besides, the research
utilized 80 servers with a variety of resource capacities and
loads. Every server hosted different kinds of edVM instances with
various CPU and memory capacities as shown in Table 3.
4.2. Analysis of the results in terms of execution time
Table 4 provides a detailed comparison of different schedul-
ing methods with FIMPSO algorithm in terms of average load,
41
Table 2
Size of synthetic datasets.
Type of tasks Number of tasks Size of tasks (MI)
Extra-large 800–1000 100000–200000
Large 600–700 70000–100000
Medium 400–500 50000–70000
Small 100–200 30000–50000
Table 3
Type of VM instances [7].
Name of VM instances CPU capacity (MIPS) Memory capacity (GB)
Extra-large 35000 20
Large 25000 15
Medium 20000 10
Small 10000 5
(14)
average turnaround time and average response time. The table
values indicate that the FIMPSO attained better results over other
scheduling algorithms compared, in a considerable way. When
measuring the results in terms of average turn around time, it can
be noted that the maximum average turn around time required
by IPSO and FF techniques were of 57.74 ms and 55.54 ms
respectively. A slightly low average turnaround time was re-
quired by RR, FCFS and SJF methods with average turnaround
time being 41.98 ms, 41.87 ms and 41.56 ms respectively. After
that, GA attained manageable results with a moderate average
turnaround time of 26.57 ms. At the same time, the IPSO-FF
algorithm exhibited a competitive average turnaround time of
22.13 ms. However, the presented FIMPSO algorithm yielded
an effective outcome with the least average turnaround time
(15) of 21.09 ms. Similarly, when measuring the results in terms
of average response time, it can be noted that the maximum
average response time required by IPSO and FF techniques were
of 49.23 ms and 48.87 ms respectively. A slightly lower average
response time was required by RR, FCFS and SJF methods with the
average response time being 30.50 ms, 30.84 ms and 30.24 ms
respectively. Next to this, GA attained manageable results with a
moderate average response time of 20.30 ms. Simultaneously, the
IPSO-FF algorithm exhibited a competitive average response time
of 15.21 ms. However, the proposed FIMPSO algorithm yielded
an effective outcome with the least average response time of
13.58 ms.
4.3. Analysis of results in terms of CPU utilization
Fig. 3 shows the results attained by the presented model in
terms of CPU utilization. The figure indicates that the FIMPSO
achieved the maximum CPU utilization under all types of tasks in
comparison with other methods. Under small types of tasks, both
RD and WRR models showed poor CPU utilization by achieving
minimum utilization of 45% and 49%, respectively. At the same
time, both DLB and LB-BC methods tried to manage well by at-
taining a slight increase in CPU utilization i.e., 52% and 57%. Next
to that, both LB-RC and FF-IPSO algorithms offered closer results
to FIMPSO by attaining 67% and 69% CPU utilization respec-
tively. But, the presented model exhibited superior performance
by attaining the maximum CPU utilization of 71%.
On the other hand, under extra large types of tasks, both
RD and WRR models showed only poor CPU utilization with
minimum utilization of 75% and 79% respectively. At the same
time, both DLB and LB-BC methods tried to manage well by
attaining a mild increase in the CPU utilization i.e., 84% and 89%
respectively. Next to that, both LB-RC and FF-IPSO algorithms
offered closer results to FIMPSO by attaining 94% and 96% CPU
utilization respectively. But, the presented model yielded superior
42 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45
Table 4
Comparison between the proposed method and other scheduling methods.
Methods Average load (ms) Average turnaround time (ms)
RR 0.430 41.98
FCFS 0.460 41.87
SJF 0.495 41.56
GA 0.310 26.57
IPSO 0.457 57.74
Firefly 0.470 55.54
FF-IPSO 0.259 22.13
FIMPSO 0.247 21.09
Fig. 3. Comparative results analysis in terms of CPU utilization.
performance by attaining the maximum CPU utilization of 98%
under extra large tasks. Therefore, it can be inferred that the
presented FIMPSO algorithm is highly effective in terms of CPU
utilization under all types of tasks, irrespective of the task sizes.
The figure also states that the increase in number of tasks results
in increase in CPU utilization.
4.4. Analysis of results in terms of memory utilization
A detailed analysis conducted between FIMPSO and existing
methods in terms of memory utilization is shown in Fig. 4. From
the figure, it is understood that the FIMPSO achieved the maxi-
mum memory utilization under all types of tasks in comparison
with other methods. Under small types of tasks, both RD and
WRR models showed poor memory utilization by achieving only
the minimum memory utilization of 40% and 44% respectively.
At the same time, both DLB and LB-BC methods tried to manage
well by attaining a slight increase in the memory utilization up to
49% and 53% respectively. Next to that, both LB-RC and FF-IPSO
algorithms achieved closer results to FIMPSO by attaining 57% and
58% memory utilization respectively. Nevertheless, the presented
model exhibited superior performance by attaining the maximum
memory utilization of 60%. On the other hand, under extra large
types of tasks, both RD and WRR models showed poor memory
utilization by achieving only a minimum memory utilization of
72% and 76% respectively.
At the same time, both DLB and LB-BC methods tried to man-
age well by attaining a slight increase in the memory utilization
up to 81% and 84%. Next to that, both LB-RC and FF-IPSO algo-
rithms achieved closer results to FIMPSO by attaining 89% and
91% memory utilization respectively. But, the presented model
yielded superior performance by attaining the maximum memory
utilization of 93% under extra large tasks. Therefore, it can be
Average response time (ms)
30.50
30.84
30.24
20.30
49.23
48.87
15.21
13.58
Fig. 4. Comparative results analysis in terms of memory utilization.
inferred that the presented FIMPSO algorithm is highly effective
in terms of memory utilization under all the types of tasks,
irrespective of its size. The figure also states that the increase in
number of tasks results in the increase of memory utilization.
4.5. Analysis of results in terms of reliability
The reliability analysis of various methods was performed
between FIMPSO and existing methods as shown in Fig. 5. Under
small types of tasks, both RD and WRR models showed poor reli-
ability by achieving only the minimum reliability of 76% and 81%
respectively. At the same time, both DLB and LB-BC methods tried
to manage well by attaining a slight increase in the reliability up
to 87% and 92%. Next to that, the LB-RC algorithm yielded closer
results to FF-IPSO and FIMPSO by attaining the reliability of 92%.
However, the presented and LB-RC models yielded superior
performance by attaining the maximum reliability of 100%. On
the other hand, under extra large types of tasks, both RD and
WRR models showed poor reliability by achieving 35% and 39%
minimum reliability only. At the same time, both DLB and LB-BC
methods tried to manage well by attaining a slight increase in the
reliability up to 45% and 54%. Next to that, both LB-RC and FF-IPSO
algorithms achieved closer results to FIMPSO by attaining each
63% identical reliability. However, the presented model exhibited
the superior performance by attaining the maximum reliability
of 67% under extra large tasks. Therefore, it can be inferred that
the presented FIMPSO algorithm is highly effective in reliability
under all the types of tasks irrespective of the task sizes. It is also
inferred that the reliability gets decreased when the number of
tasks increases.
4.6. Analysis of results in terms of make span
Fig. 6 provides a detailed comparison of different scheduling
methods with FIMPSO algorithm in terms of make span. The
 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45
Fig. 5. Comparative results analysis in terms of reliability.
Fig. 6. Comparative results analysis in terms of make span.
figure indicates that the FIMPSO yielded better results over the
compared scheduling algorithms in a considerable way.
When measuring the results in terms of extra-large tasks and
make span, it is noted that the maximum make span of 280 and
280 were required by RD and WRR techniques respectively. Next,
slightly lower make span was required by DLB, LB-BC and LB-RC
methods with the make span of 273, 261 and 153 respectively.
At the same time, the IPSO-FF algorithm required a competitive
make span of 150. However, the presented FIMPSO algorithm was
effective with the least make span requirement of 148. It is to
be noted that the make span gets gradually increased with the
increasing number of tasks.
4.7. Analysis of results in terms of average throughput
Finally, an extensive average throughput analysis of various
methods was performed between FIMPSO and existing methods
as shown in the Fig. 7. Under small types of tasks, both RD and
WRR models showed poor average throughput by achieving only
a minimum average throughput of 65% and 72% respectively. At
the same time, both DLB and LB-BC methods tried to manage well
by attaining a slight increase in the average throughput of 81%
and 90%.
43
Fig. 7. Comparative results analysis in terms of average throughput.
Next to that, both LB-RC and FF-IPSO algorithms yielded closer
results to FIMPSO by attaining the identical average throughput of
96% and 98% respectively. But, the presented model exhibited su-
perior performance by attaining the maximum average through-
put of 100% under extra large tasks. On the other hand, under
extra large types of tasks, both RD and WRR models showed
poor average throughput by achieving only a minimum aver-
age throughput of 30% and 36% respectively. At the same time,
both DLB and LB-BC methods tried to manage well by attaining
a slight increase in the average throughputs of 44% and 53%.
Next to that, both LB-RC and FF-IPSO algorithms achieved closer
results to FIMPSO by attaining the identical average throughput
of 65% and 68% respectively. But, the presented model excelled
through its superior performance by attaining the maximum av-
erage throughput of 72% under extra large tasks.
4.8. Discussion
The results achieved by the proposed model under several
aspects are listed below.
• FIMPSO algorithm yielded an effective outcome with the
least average response time of 13.58 ms.
• The proposed model attained the maximum CPU utilization
of 98% under extra large tasks.
• The presented model reached the maximum memory uti-
lization of 93% under extra large tasks.
• Besides, the maximum reliability of 67% under extra large
tasks was offered by the proposed method along with a
make span of 148. It also attained the maximum average
throughput of 72% under extra large tasks.
Therefore, it can be inferred that the presented FIMPSO algorithm
has an effective average throughput under all types of tasks,
irrespective of the task sizes. It can also be inferred that the
average throughput gets decreased when the number of tasks
increase.
5. Conclusion
This paper has presented an energy efficient load balancing
algorithm in cloud environment using FIMPSO algorithm. The
presented algorithm incorporates the benefits of both FF and
IMPSO algorithms. The presented FIMPSO algorithm achieved an
44 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45
effective average load for making and enhanced the essential
measures like proper resource usage and response time of the
tasks. For experimentation, the set of measures used to investi-
gate the results were execution time, resource utilization, reliabil-
ity, make span and throughput. The simulation outcome showed
that the proposed FIMPSO model excelled in its performance
over the compared methods. From the simulation outcome, it is
understood that the FIMPSO algorithm achieved effective results
with the least average response time of 13.58 ms, maximum CPU
utilization of 98%, memory utilization of 93%, reliability of 67%
and throughput of 72% along with a make span of 148, which
was superior to all other compared methods. The future scope is
inclusive of improvements in the presented FIMPSO algorithm to
use the data deduplication algorithms.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
A. Francis Saviour Devaraj: Conceptualization, Writing - orig-
inal draft, Methodology. Mohamed Elhoseny: Formal analysis,
Writing - review & editing, Resources. S. Dhanasekaran: Vali-
dation, Methodology, Software. E. Laxmi Lydia: Project adminis-
tration, Resources, Validation. K. Shankar: Software, Supervision,
Visualization.
Acknowledgments
Dr. K. Shankar sincerely acknowledge the financial support of
RUSA–Phase 2.0 grant sanctioned vide Letter No. F. 24-51/2014-U,
Policy (TNMulti-Gen), Dept. of Edn. Govt. of India, Dt. 09.10.2018.
References
[1] B.A. Al-Maytami, P. Fan, A. Hussain, T. Baker, P. Liatsis, A task schedul-
ing algorithm with improved makespan based on prediction of tasks
computation time algorithm for cloud computing, IEEE Access 7 (2019)
160916–160926.
[2] M. Armbrust, A. Fox, R. Griffith, A.D. Joseph, R. Katz, A. Konwinski, G. Lee, D.
Patterson, A. Rabkin, I. Stoica, et al., A view of cloud computing, Commun.
ACM 53 (4) (2010) 50–58.
[3] T. Baker, M. Asim, H. Tawfik, B. Aldawsari, R. Buyya, An energy-aware
service composition algorithm for multiple cloud-based IoT applications, J.
Netw. Comput. Appl. 89 (2017) 96–108.
[4] S. Belguith, N. Kaaniche, M. Hammoudeh, T. Dargahi, PROUD: verifiable
privacy-preserving outsourced attribute based signcryption supporting
access policy update for cloud assisted IoT applications, Future Gener.
Comput. Syst. (2019).
[5] R. Buyya, S. Pandey, C. Vecchiola, Cloudbus toolkit for market-oriented
cloud computing, in: CloudCom 09: Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Cloud Computing, vol. 5931, in: LNCS, Springer, 2009,
pp. 24–44.
[6] D. Chaudhary, B. Kumar, An analysis of the load scheduling algorithms in
the cloud computing environment: A survey, in: IEEE 9th International
Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, ICIIS, IEEE, 2014,
pp. 1–6.
[7] Z. Fan, T. Wang, Z. Cheng, G. Li, F. Gu, An improved multiobjective particle
swarm optimization algorithm using minimum distance of point to line,
Shock Vib. (2017) (2017).
[8] S.K. Garg, R. Buyya, Network cloudsim: Modelling parallel applications in
cloud simulations, in: 4th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility
and Cloud Computing, IEEE CS Press, 2011, pp. 105–113.
[9] M.M. Golchi, S. Saraeian, M. Heydari, A hybrid of firefly and improved
particle swarm optimization algorithms for load balancing in cloud
environments: Performance evaluation, Comput. Netw. 162 (2019) 106860.
[10] J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, M. Palaniswami, Internet of Things (IoT): a
vision, architectural elements, and future directions, Future Gener. Comput.
Syst. 29 (7) (2013) 1645–1660.
[11] C. Gupta, S. Jain, Multilevel fuzzy partition segmentation of satellite
images using GSA, in: International Conference on Signal Propagation and
Computer Technology, ICSPCT, 2014.
[12] P. Kendrick, T. Baker, Z. Maamar, A. Hussain, R. Buyya, D. Al-Jumeily, An
efficient multi-cloud service composition using a distributed multiagent-
based, memory-driven approach, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Comput. (2018) http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSUSC.2018.2881416.
[13] J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, in: IEEE International
Conference on Neural Networks, vol. 4, IEEE, 1995, pp. 1942–1948.
[14] M. Khatibinia, S. Khosravi, A hybrid approach based on an improved
gravitational search algorithm and orthogonal crossover for optimal shape
design of concrete gravity dams, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 16 (2014) 223–233.
[15] A. Khiyaita, Bakkali El, M. Zbakh, D.E. Kettani, Load balancing cloud
computing: State of art, in: IEEE National Days of Network Security and
Systems, in: JNS2, IEEE, 2012, pp. 106–109.
[16] Y. Kotb, I. Al Ridhawi, M. Aloqaily, T. Baker, Y. Jararweh, H. Tawfik, Cloud-
based multi-agent cooperation for IoT devices using workflow-nets, J. Grid
Comput. 17 (4) (2019) 625–650.
[17] M. Mezmaz, N. Melab, Y. Kessaci, Y.C. Lee, E.-G. Talbi, A.Y. Zomaya, D.
Tuyttens, A parallel bi-objective hybrid meta heuristic for energy-aware
scheduling for cloud computing systems, J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 71
(11) (2011) 1497–1508.
[18] E. Pacini, C. Mateos, C.G. Garino, Distributed job scheduling based on
swarm intelligence: A survey, Comput. Electr. Eng. 40 (2013) 252–269.
[19] S. Pandey, R. Buyya, et al., A particle swarm optimization based heuristic
for scheduling workflow applications in cloud computing environments, in:
24th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking
and Applications, IEEE, 2010, pp. 400–407.
[20] E. Rashedi, A. Zarezadeh, Noise filtering in ultrasound images using Grav-
itational Search Algorithm, in: Iranian Conference on Intelligent Systems,
ICIS, 2014.
[21] G.T. Reddy, N. Khare, Hybrid firefly-bat optimized fuzzy artificial neural
network based classifier for diabetes diagnosis, Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 10
(4) (2017) 18–27.
[22] G.T. Reddy, N. Khare, Heart disease classification system using optimised
fuzzy rule based algorithm, Int. J. Biomed. Eng. Technol. 27 (3) (2018)
183–202.
[23] G. Sun, A. Zhang, X. Jia, X. Li, S. Ji, Z. Wang, DMMOGSA: Diversity-enhanced
and memory-based multiobjective gravitational search algorithm, Inform.
Sci. 363 (2016) 52–71.
[24] Y. Wang, Y. Guo, Z. Guo, T. Baker, W. Liu, CLOSURE: A cloud scientific
workflow scheduling algorithm based on attack–defense game model,
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. (2019) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.
11.003.
[25] Y. Wang, Y. Guo, Z. Guo, T. Baker, W. Liu, CLOSURE: A cloud scientific
workflow scheduling algorithm based on attack–defense game model,
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. (2019).
[26] J. Yu, R. Buyya, K. Ramamohanarao, Workflow scheduling algorithms for
grid computing, in: Meta-Heuristics for Scheduling in Distributed Comput-
ing Environments, in: Series of Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol.
146, Springer, 2008, pp. 173–214.
[27] A.E.M. Zavala, A.H. Aguirre, E.R.V. Diharce, S.B. Rionda, Constrained opti-
misation with an improved particle swarm optimisation algorithm, Int. J.
Intell. Comput. Cybern. 1 (3) (2008) 425–453.
Dr. A. Francis Saviour Devaraj is a Professor & Head,
Department of CSE, School of Computing, Kalasalingam
University, India. In 2011, he completed Ph.D in
Department of Computer Science with specialization
in Information Security, Manonmaniam Sundaranar
University, India. He is the author or co-author of
more than 20 research publications. His current re-
search interests include Healthcare applications, Cloud
computing, Internet of Things, and Soft computing
algorithms.
Dr. Mohamed Elhoseny is currently an Assistant Pro-
fessor at the Faculty of Computers and Information,
Mansoura University where he is also the Director
of Distributed Sensing and Intelligent Systems Lab.
Besides, he has been appointed as an ACM Distin-
guished Speaker from 2019 to 2022. Collectively, Dr.
Elhoseny authored/co-authored over 85 ISI Journal ar-
ticles in high-ranked and prestigious journals such as
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics (IEEE), IEEE
Transactions on Reliability (IEEE), Future Generation
Computer Systems (Elsevier), and Neural Computing
and Applications (Springer). Besides, Dr. Elhoseny authored/edited Conference
 A. Francis Saviour Devaraj, M. Elhoseny, S. Dhanasekaran et al. / Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 142 (2020) 36–45
Proceedings, Book Chapters, and 10 books published by Springer and Taylor &
Francis. His research interests include Smart Cities, Network Security, Artificial
Intelligence, Internet of Things, and Intelligent Systems. Dr. Elhoseny serves as
the Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Smart Sensor Technologies and
Applications, IGI Global. Moreover, he is an Associate Editor of many journals
such as IEEE Access (Impact Factor 3.5), IEEE Future Directions, PLOS One journal
(Impact Factor 2.7), Remote Sensing (Impact Factor 3.5), and International
Journal of E-services and Mobile Applications, IGI Global (Scopus Indexed). Also,
he is an Editorial Board member in reputed journals such as Applied Intelligence,
Springer (Impact Factor 1.9). Moreover, he served as the co-chair, the publication
chair, the program chair, and a track chair for several international conferences
published by IEEE and Springer.
Dr. S. Dhanasekaran has started his Academic ca-
reer as Lecturer in Department of IT in Arulmigu
Kalasalingam College of Engineering (AKCE) in 2008.
Now he has been working as Associate Professor in
the Department of CSE, Kalasalingam University. He
has completed Ph.D., (Cloud Computing) in the year
2017 at Kalasalingam University under the Guidance
of Dr.V. Vasudevan Senior Professor & Registrar of
Kalasalingam University, Srivilliputtur, and Tamilnadu,
India. He is highly motivated, well-disciplined profes-
sional with 11-years of Teaching Experience in the area
of Computer science & Engineering with flexibility, loyalty & strong motivational
skills. He is a Life time member of ISTE and IEEE. He has received Best Research
paper Award, Teaching Competence Award, Faculty Advisor ship Award and
Motivational Awards at Kalasalingam University. He acted as a Resource person
and convener for conducting various FDP, Conference, and Workshops. Moreover
he has published more than 20 Research papers in which SCOPUS - (6) and SCI
(Thomson Reuters-(2)) Indexed Journals with Impact Factor.
45
Dr. E. Laxmi Lydia is a Professor of Computer Science
Engineering at Vignan’s Institute of Information Tech-
nology(A). She is a big data analytics online trainer
for the international training organization and she has
presented various webinars on big data analytics. She
is certified by Microsoft Certified Solution Developer
(MCSD). She published more than 100 research papers
in international journals in the area big data analyt-
ics and data sciences and she published ten research
papers in international conference proceedings. She is
an author for the big data analytics book and currently
she is working on government DST funded project and she holds patents.
Dr. K. Shankar is currently a Post Doc Fellow in the
Alagappa University, Karaikudi, India. Collectively, Dr.
K. Shankar authored/co-authored over 40 ISI Journal
articles (with total Impact Factor 102.051) and 148
Scopus Indexed Articles. He has guest-edited several
special issues at many journals published by Inder-
science and MDPI. He has served as Guest Editor,
Associate Editor in SCI, Scopus indexed journals like
Elsevier, Springer, Wiley & MDPI. Dr. Shankar au-
thored/edited Conference Proceedings, Book Chapters,
and 2 books published by Springer. He has been a part
of various seminars, paper presentations, research paper reviews, and convener
and a session chair of the several conferences. He displayed vast success in
continuously acquiring new knowledge and applying innovative pedagogies
and has always aimed to be an effective educator and have a global outlook.
His current research interests include Healthcare applications, Secret Image
Sharing Scheme, Digital Image Security, Cryptography, Internet of Things, and
Optimization algorithms.