Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Textbook Algorithms and Architectures For Parallel Processing 18Th International Conference Ica3Pp 2018 Guangzhou China November 15 17 2018 Proceedings Part Iv Jaideep Vaidya Ebook All Chapter PDF
Textbook Algorithms and Architectures For Parallel Processing 18Th International Conference Ica3Pp 2018 Guangzhou China November 15 17 2018 Proceedings Part Iv Jaideep Vaidya Ebook All Chapter PDF
Textbook Algorithms and Architectures For Parallel Processing 18Th International Conference Ica3Pp 2018 Guangzhou China November 15 17 2018 Proceedings Part Iv Jaideep Vaidya Ebook All Chapter PDF
https://textbookfull.com/product/algorithms-and-architectures-
for-parallel-processing-ica3pp-2018-international-workshops-
guangzhou-china-november-15-17-2018-proceedings-ting-hu/
https://textbookfull.com/product/pattern-recognition-and-
computer-vision-first-chinese-conference-prcv-2018-guangzhou-
china-november-23-26-2018-proceedings-part-iv-jian-huang-lai/
123
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11337
Commenced Publication in 1973
Founding and Former Series Editors:
Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen
Editorial Board
David Hutchison
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Takeo Kanade
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Josef Kittler
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Jon M. Kleinberg
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Friedemann Mattern
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
John C. Mitchell
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Moni Naor
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
C. Pandu Rangan
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
Bernhard Steffen
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
Demetri Terzopoulos
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Doug Tygar
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Gerhard Weikum
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7407
Jaideep Vaidya Jin Li (Eds.)
•
123
Editors
Jaideep Vaidya Jin Li
Rutgers University Guangzhou University
Newark, NJ, USA Guangzhou, China
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
of this conference. We would like to express our special appreciation to Prof. Yang
Xiang, Prof. Weijia Jia, Prof. Yi Pan, Prof. Laurence T. Yang, and Prof. Wanlei Zhou,
the Steering Committee members, for giving us the opportunity to host this prestigious
conference and for their guidance with the conference organization. We would like to
emphasize our gratitude to the general chairs, Prof. Albert Zomaya and Prof. Minyi
Guo, for their outstanding support in organizing the event. Thanks also to the publicity
chairs, Prof. Zheli Liu and Dr Weizhi Meng, for the great job in publicizing this event.
We would like to give our thanks to all the members of the Organizing Committee and
Program Committee for their efforts and support.
The ICA3PP 2018 program included two workshops, namely, the ICA3PP 2018
Workshop on Intelligent Algorithms for Large-Scale Complex Optimization Problems
and the ICA3PP 2018 Workshop on Security and Privacy in Data Processing. We
would like to express our sincere appreciation to the workshop chairs: Prof. Ting Hu,
Prof. Feng Wang, Prof. Hongwei Li and Prof. Qian Wang.
Last but not least, we would like to thank all the contributing authors and all
conference attendees, as well as the great team at Springer that assisted in producing the
conference proceedings, and the developers and maintainers of EasyChair.
General Chairs
Albert Zomaya University of Sydney, Australia
Minyi Guo Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Program Chairs
Jaideep Vaidya Rutgers University, USA
Jin Li Guangzhou University, China
Publication Chair
Yu Wang Guangzhou University, China
Publicity Chairs
Zheli Liu Nankai University, China
Weizhi Meng Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Steering Committee
Yang Xiang (Chair) Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Weijia Jia Shanghai Jiaotong University, China
Yi Pan Georgia State University, USA
Laurence T. Yang St. Francis Xavier University, Canada
Wanlei Zhou Deakin University, Australia
Program Committee
Pedro Alonso Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
Daniel Andresen Kansas State University, USA
Cosimo Anglano Universitá del Piemonte Orientale, Italy
Danilo Ardagna Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Kapil Arya Northeastern University, USA
Marcos Assuncao Inria, France
Joonsang Baek University of Wollongong, Australia
Anirban Basu KDDI Research Inc., Japan
Ladjel Bellatreche LIAS/ENSMA, France
Jorge Bernal Bernabe University of Murcia, Spain
Thomas Boenisch High-Performance Computing Center Stuttgart,
Germany
VIII Organization
Sensitive Data Detection Using NN and KNN from Big Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
Binod Kumar Adhikari, Wan Li Zuo, Ramesh Maharjan, and Lin Guo
Yujie Huang, Quan Zhang, Yujie Cai, Minge Jing(&), Yibo Fan,
and Xiaoyang Zeng
Abstract. In such an era of big data, the number of tasks submitted to cloud
computing system becomes huge and users’ demand for real time has increased.
But the existing algorithms rarely take real time into consideration and most of
them are static scheduling algorithms. As a result, we ensure real time of cloud
computing system under the premise of not influencing the performance on
makespan and load balance by proposing a dynamic scheduler called Real Time
Dynamic Max-min-min (RTDM) which takes real time, makespan, and load
balance into consideration. RTDM is made up of dynamic sequencer and static
scheduler. In dynamic sequencer, the tasks are sorted dynamically based on their
waiting and execution times to decrease makespan and improve real time. The
tasks fetched from the dynamic sequencer to the static scheduler can be seen as
static tasks, so we propose an algorithm named Max-min-min in static scheduler
which achieves good performance on waiting time, makespan and load balance
simultaneously. Experiment results demonstrate that the proposed scheduler
greatly improves the performance on real time and makespan compared with the
static scheduling algorithms like Max-min, Min-min and PSO, and improves
performance on makespan and real time by 1.66% and 17.19% respectively
compared to First Come First Serve (FCFS).
With the widespread use of cloud computing [1], the number of tasks submitted to
cloud computing system grows rapidly which leads to the congestion of cloud com-
puting system, but users’ real-time requirement for cloud computing system becomes
much higher [10]. However the existing algorithms pay more attention to makespan
and load balance while rarely taking real time into consideration. And most of them are
static scheduling algorithm which do not schedule tasks until all tasks are submitted
[10]. Some representative algorithms are described below.
First come first server (FCFS) is a dynamic task scheduling algorithm which first
assigns the first arrived task to a free host. It ignores the characteristics of hosts and
tasks, such as task size and host processing capacity [2, 3].
Min-min algorithm first assigns the smallest task in the task list to the host where
the completion time of the smallest task is minimum while Max-min algorithm first
assigns the biggest one [2, 3]. Max-min achieves better performance on makespan than
Min-min.
Intelligent algorithm, like Genetic Algorithm (GA) [4, 5] and Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) [6, 7, 9], is applied in task scheduling because task scheduling is a
Non-deterministic Polynomial Complete problem (NP-C problem) where intelligent
algorithm is suitable [5, 6]. Intelligent algorithm can have good performance on many
aspects, like makespan and load balance, but its scheduling time is long [6].
When users make new demands, such as security of immediate data, task
scheduling algorithm should also take them into consideration without affecting
makespan and load balance as much as possible [8].
Except FCFS, all above algorithms are static scheduling algorithm which need the
information of all tasks before scheduling in order to achieve better performance [9].
But in fact, waiting for all tasks to be submitted before scheduling has a severe impact
on the real time performance because tasks are submitted one by one at an indefinite
intervals [10]. Real time of cloud computing system requires the waiting time it takes
for a task to be submitted to execution should be as short as possible. As a result, the
real time performance of the system can be measured by the total waiting time of all the
tasks. Hence, we propose a dynamic task scheduler called Real Time Dynamic Max-
min-min (RTDM) which takes makespan, load balance, and the total waiting time into
consideration.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows: Sect. 2 states the workflow and
architecture of RTDM, experiment results are shown in Sect. 3 and Sect. 4 concludes
this paper.
Figure 1 shows the architecture of RTDM which includes two parts: dynamic
sequencer and static scheduler. Dynamic sequencer is used to store and sort the tasks
submitted by users; Static scheduler fetches first n tasks from dynamic sequencer and
assigns them to the local task lists of suitable hosts when there is a vacant host. We take
global consideration of tasks’ characteristics by adjusting the value of n according to
the tasks’ estimated submission intervals. Each host owns a local task list, and it
executes the tasks in the list in turn. The detailed description of dynamic sequencer and
static scheduler is as follows.
reduce makespan, like Max-min. Therefore the priority value should be calculated as
Eq. (1).
Where t means the current time, PriorValuei ðtÞ means the priority value of taski at
time t, a indicates the weight of execution time of a task, b is the weight of waiting time
of a task, ExeTimei means the execution time of taski performed on the standard host
and WaitTimei ðtÞ means the time taski has waited at time t which is calculated as
Eq. (2) where SubmitTimei means the submission time of taski . The values of a and b
are determined by the estimated ranges of all tasks’ submission intervals and execution
times.
adjustability, like Max-min. But executing big tasks first will make waiting time long
while executing small tasks first will be benefit for short waiting time, like Min-min.
Based on the analysis above, we propose an algorithm named Max-min-min for static
scheduler. It assigns the biggest (max) task to the local task list of the host whose
completion time is minimum (min) after counting the biggest task, and then sorts the
local task list of the host according to the task size. Each host will first execute the
smallest (min) task in its local task list.
The workflow of the static scheduler is shown in Fig. 2:
(1) Get the task list TL and host list HL.
(2) Sort TL according to the tasks’ size.
(3) Judge whether the TL is empty? No, turn to step 4; Yes, sort the local task list of
each host according to task size and each host executes tasks in its local task list in
turn.
(4) Take out the biggest task from TL and assign it to the local task list of the host
whose completion time will be minimum after counting the biggest task. Turn to
step 3.
Sort the
task list
ETis
ETij ¼ ð3Þ
PCRjs
The results are shown in Figs. 3, 4 and 5, and the results of PSO is obtained after
100 iterations.
8 Y. Huang et al.
Makespan
573.89
560.1555556
580
560 524.4733333 520.6235 520.6238 517.2751
540
520
500
480
0
FCFS Min-min PSO Max-min Max-min-min
WaiƟng Ɵme
27584.51571 31115.68154
40000 23057.08489 15504.08458 15424.35242
30000
20000
10000
0
As shown in Fig. 3 where Ideal means the minimum makespan in the ideal case of
totally average allocation which can be calculated as Eq. (5), Makespan of FCFS, Min-
min, PSO, Max-min, Max-min-min is 10.95%, 8.29%, 1.39%, 0.65%, 0.65% more
than the minimum makespan separately. The difference between Max-min and Max-
min-min is 0.0003 s, because Max-min-min spends extra time sorting the local task list
of each host to change the execution order of the assigned tasks.
Dynamic Task Scheduler for Real Time Requirement in Cloud Computing System 9
PNT
i ETis
Ideal ¼ PNH ð5Þ
j PCRjs
As shown in Fig. 4, CLB of FCFS, Min-min and PSO is 132.23, 121.52 and 4.63
times of Max-min-min separately. Max-min and Max-min-min have the same CLB
because the tasks assigned to the same host with both algorithms are the same.
As shown in Fig. 5, we can find that the total waiting time of Max-min is 1.35,
1.13, 2.01 and 2.02 times of FCFS, PSO, Min-min and Max-min-min separately.
As shown in Fig. 6, The scheduling time of PSO is 121.83, 108.11 and 138.78
times of Max-min, Max-min-min and Min-min separately while FCFS takes only
2:566 106 s.
Scheduling Ɵme
0.283564741
0.3
0.2 0.000002566 0.002043324
0.1 0.00232757 0.002623
0
We can find that Max-min-min can achieve good performance not only on
makespan and load balance, but also on waiting time. It also can be seen that an
algorithm with good load balance achieves shorter makespan in the case of static tasks.
Makespan
10045.82889 9998.8575
9998.065625
12000
10000 5066.07325
8000 5156.42 5071.991667
6000
4000
2000
0
WaiƟng Ɵme
5518801.624 4902733.591
6000000 3886815.42
5000000
4000000
3000000 497187.5029
2000000 204692.8845 174664.7856
1000000
0
4 Conclusion
In this paper, we proposes a dynamic scheduler named Real Time Dynamic Max-min-
min (RTDM) which takes real time, makespan and load balance into consideration.
RTDM consists of dynamic sequencer and static scheduler. In dynamic sequencer, we
prioritize each task in it based on the task’s waiting time and execution time to ensure
the performance on makespan and real time. After the tasks are fetched from the
dynamic sequencer to the static scheduler, they can be seen as static tasks. So in static
scheduler, we propose an algorithm named Max-min-min which has good performance
Dynamic Task Scheduler for Real Time Requirement in Cloud Computing System 11
on makespan, load balance and real time in the case of static tasks. Experiment results
demonstrate that RTDM can improve the performance on makespan, load balance and
waiting time simultaneously.
References
1. Mell, P., Grance, T.: The NIST definition of cloud computing. National Institute of
Standards and Technology (2014)
2. Teena, M., Sekaran, K.C., Jose, J.: Study and analysis of various task scheduling algorithms
in the cloud computing environment. In: International Conference on Advances in
Computing, Communications and Informatics, pp. 658–664 (2014)
3. Bhoi, U., Ramanuj, P.N.: Enhanced max-min task scheduling algorithm in cloud computing.
Int. J. Appl. Innov. Eng. Manag. 2(4), 259–264 (2013)
4. Wei, X.J., Bei, W., Jun, L.: SAMPGA task scheduling algorithm in cloud computing. In:
Chinese Control Conference, pp. 5633–5637 (2017)
5. Makasarwala, H.A., Hazari, P.: Using genetic algorithm for load balancing in cloud
computing. In: Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 49–54 (2016)
6. Alla, H.B., Alla, S.B.: A novel architecture for task scheduling based on dynamic queues and
particle swarm optimization in cloud computing. In: Cloud Computing Technologies and
Applications, pp. 108–114 (2016)
7. Liu, X.F., Zhan, Z.H., Deng, J.D.: An energy efficient ant colony system for virtual machine
placement in cloud computing. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. PP(99), 1 (2016)
8. Chen, H., Zhu, X.: Scheduling for workflows with security-sensitive intermediate data by
selective tasks duplication in clouds. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 28(9), 2674–2688
(2017)
9. Gupta, S.R., Gajera, V.: An effective multi-objective workflow scheduling in cloud
computing: a PSO based approach. In: International Conference on Contemporary
Computing (2016)
10. Zhu, X., Yang, L.T., Chen, H., Wang, J., Yin, S., Liu, X.: Real-time tasks oriented energy-
aware scheduling in virtualized clouds. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 2(2), 168–180 (2014)
CGAN Based Cloud Computing Server Power
Curve Generating
1 Introduction
With the increasingly wide application of Internet and Internet of things, the global
demand for computing resources and storage resources is gradually increasing. A large
number of new IT devices are put into the data center, and data centers consume a large
amount of power, of which IT equipment and refrigeration are the two main types of
energy source [1, 2]. Server is the most deployed IT device in data center. It is also the
foundation of data center’s service and an important part of energy management. In
recent years, because of the development of demand driven and energy management
technology for different types of services in the cloud computing, the cloud computing
server presents new usage rules and energy consumption characteristics. The new and
old equipment are working together, the energy consumption of new equipment is
increasing gradually. With new model of server energy consumption coming with new
applications, it is necessary to research and mater of the characteristics of energy
consumption of the cloud computing servers. According to the configuration and usage
of the server, we can predict and generate the typical energy consumption curve of the
cloud computing server automatically in advance, which is very important for the
energy efficiency management and optimization of the data center.
There are two ways to model server energy consumption, one is component based
modeling, and the other is performance counting based modeling. The server energy
consumption model based on component usage is mainly based on the calculation of
the total energy consumption of the server based on the usage of each component [3].
The server energy consumption model based on component usage is one of the classic
modeling methods. The modeling method based on CPU usage rate is the earliest job.
Some researchers have expanded the model and introduced the parameters of envi-
ronment temperature, bus activity and processor frequency to the model, in order to
improve the accuracy and applicability of the model. Recently, with the extensive
application of deep learning and GPU, researchers have introduced high energy con-
suming components such as GPU into the model to improve the applicability of the
model. Paper [4] discusses the modeling of static and dynamic energy consumption in
multi-core processors. The energy consumption of the processor is divided into four
parts: dynamic kernel energy consumption, non-kernel dynamic energy consumption,
kernel static energy consumption and non-kernel static energy consumption. The four
parts are modeled respectively. Finally, the total energy consumption is calculated. The
paper further studies the effect of DVFS on processor energy consumption, and finds
that not low frequency will bring low energy consumption.
These modeling methods are based on the running state of the device, and do not
take into account the energy consumption characteristics of different services and
applications at the data center level, and cannot predict the power needed for an
application to run on a new server. This is needed for data center planning, server
deployment and energy management. From the actual needs of data center, this paper
studies how to generate the power curve of the server for various applications in
advance, which can provide reference and guidance for energy consumption planning
and management.
GAN (Generative Adversarial Nets) is a recently developed training method for
generative models [5], which has been widely applied in the field of image and vision. The
researchers have made a variety of improvements to the model. It has been able to
generate objects such as digital number, face and some objects, and form a variety of
realistic indoor and outdoor scenes, recover the original image from the segmentation
image, color the black and white images, restore the object image from the object contour,
and generate the high resolution image from the low resolution image, etc. [6–10].
In this paper, the generation method of energy consumption curve of server based
on GAN is studied, and the advantages of GAN in estimating the probability distri-
bution of sample data are used for the generation of server energy consumption. The
energy consumption curves generated by the model can be used in the energy man-
agement of data centers such as server placement planning, Power Capping energy
consumption management and room temperature optimization. It is of great signifi-
cance for the resource scheduling and energy consumption optimization of the cloud
computing data center.
14 L. Yan et al.
320 web db
Power(w)
300
280
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324
Ɵme(hour)
(a) Power curve of web and database sever
200
big data-C big data-S
Power(W)
180
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324
Ɵme(hour)
(b) Power curve of computing and storage server in big data cluster