# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
Optimal liability ratio and dividend payment strategies under catastrophic risk
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Compensation plan, pricing and production decisions with inventory-dependent salvage value, and asymmetric risk-averse sales agent
October  2018, 14(4): 1423-1442. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018014

## Performance optimization of parallel-distributed processing with checkpointing for cloud environment

 1 Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Hommachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan 2 Graduate School of Information Science, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, 8916-5 Takayama, Ikoma, Nara 630-0192, Japan

Received  December 2016 Revised  August 2017 Published  October 2018 Early access  January 2018

Citation: Tsuguhito Hirai, Hiroyuki Masuyama, Shoji Kasahara, Yutaka Takahashi. Performance optimization of parallel-distributed processing with checkpointing for cloud environment. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (4) : 1423-1442. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018014
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Processing of a subtask with checkpointing method
Mean task-processing time with respect to the number of checkpoints for various $M$ ($b = 24$ [hour], $c = 300$ [sec], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of analysis and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to the number of checkpoints for various $b$ ($M = 100$, $c = 300$ [sec], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of analysis and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to the number of checkpoints for various $c$ ($M = 100$, $b = 24$ [hour], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of analysis and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to the number of checkpoints for various $f$ ($M = 100$, $b = 24$ [hour], $c = 300$ [sec], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of analysis and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to the number of checkpoints for various $r$ ($M = 100$, $b = 24$ [hour], $f = 30$ [day], $c = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of analysis and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to $M$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($b = 24$ [hour], $c = 300$ [sec], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of previous and proposal analyses and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to $b$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $c = 300$ [sec], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of previous and proposal analyses and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to $c$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $b = 24$ [hour], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of previous and proposal analyses and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to $f$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $b = 24$ [hour], $c = 300$ [sec], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison between the results of previous and proposal analyses and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to $r$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $c = 300$ [sec], $b = 24$ [hour], $f = 30$ [day]): Comparison between the results of previous and proposal analyses and simulation
Mean task-processing time with respect to $M$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($b = 24$ [hour], $c = 300$ [sec], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison among three distributions for the time intervals between consecutive worker failures
Mean task-processing time with respect to $b$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $c = 300$ [sec], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison among three distributions for the time intervals between consecutive worker failures
Mean task-processing time with respect to $c$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $b = 24$ [hour], $f = 30$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison among three distributions for the time intervals between consecutive worker failures
Mean task-processing time with respect to $f$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $b = 24$ [hour], $c = 300$ [sec], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison among three distributions for the time intervals between consecutive worker failures
Mean task-processing time with respect to $r$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $c = 300$ [sec], $b = 24$ [hour], $f = 30$ [day]): Comparison among three distributions for the time intervals between consecutive worker failures
Mean task-processing time with respect to small $f$ for the optimal number of checkpoints ($M = 100$, $b = 24$ [hour], $c = 300$ [sec], $f = 1$ to $7$ [day], $r = 300$ [sec]): Comparison among three distributions for the time intervals between consecutive worker failures
Parameter set.
 Parameter Description Value $M$ Number of workers $10$ to $1,000$ $b$ Subtask-processing time $6$ to $120$ [hour] $c$ Time to make a checkpoint $30$ to $3,000$ [sec] $f$ Mean time between worker failures $7$ to $180$ [day] $r$ Time to resume a failed subtask $30$ to $3,000$ [sec] $K$ Number of checkpoints $0$ to $30$
 Parameter Description Value $M$ Number of workers $10$ to $1,000$ $b$ Subtask-processing time $6$ to $120$ [hour] $c$ Time to make a checkpoint $30$ to $3,000$ [sec] $f$ Mean time between worker failures $7$ to $180$ [day] $r$ Time to resume a failed subtask $30$ to $3,000$ [sec] $K$ Number of checkpoints $0$ to $30$
 [1] Tsuguhito Hirai, Hiroyuki Masuyama, Shoji Kasahara, Yutaka Takahashi. Performance analysis of large-scale parallel-distributed processing with backup tasks for cloud computing. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (1) : 113-129. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.113 [2] Kyosuke Hashimoto, Hiroyuki Masuyama, Shoji Kasahara, Yutaka Takahashi. Performance analysis of backup-task scheduling with deadline time in cloud computing. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (3) : 867-886. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.867 [3] Xuena Yan, Shunfu Jin, Wuyi Yue, Yutaka Takahashi. Performance analysis and system optimization of an energy-saving mechanism in cloud computing with correlated traffic. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021106 [4] Ji-Bo Wang, Bo Zhang, Hongyu He. A unified analysis for scheduling problems with variable processing times. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021008 [5] Bin Zheng, Min Fan, Mengqi Liu, Shang-Chia Liu, Yunqiang Yin. Parallel-machine scheduling with potential disruption and positional-dependent processing times. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (2) : 697-711. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016041 [6] Jiping Tao, Zhijun Chao, Yugeng Xi. A semi-online algorithm and its competitive analysis for a single machine scheduling problem with bounded processing times. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2010, 6 (2) : 269-282. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2010.6.269 [7] Shunfu Jin, Haixing Wu, Wuyi Yue, Yutaka Takahashi. Performance evaluation and Nash equilibrium of a cloud architecture with a sleeping mechanism and an enrollment service. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (5) : 2407-2424. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019060 [8] Jinsong Xu. Reversible hidden data access algorithm in cloud computing environment. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2019, 12 (4&5) : 1219-1232. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2019084 [9] Serap Ergün, Bariş Bülent Kırlar, Sırma Zeynep Alparslan Gök, Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber. An application of crypto cloud computing in social networks by cooperative game theory. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (4) : 1927-1941. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019036 [10] Weidong Bao, Haoran Ji, Xiaomin Zhu, Ji Wang, Wenhua Xiao, Jianhong Wu. ACO-based solution for computation offloading in mobile cloud computing. Big Data & Information Analytics, 2016, 1 (1) : 1-13. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016.1.1 [11] Leiyang Wang, Zhaohui Liu. Heuristics for parallel machine scheduling with batch delivery consideration. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (1) : 259-273. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.259 [12] Chengwen Jiao, Qi Feng. Research on the parallel–batch scheduling with linearly lookahead model. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (6) : 3551-3558. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020132 [13] Min Ji, Xinna Ye, Fangyao Qian, T.C.E. Cheng, Yiwei Jiang. Parallel-machine scheduling in shared manufacturing. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2022, 18 (1) : 681-691. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020174 [14] Min-Fan He, Li-Ning Xing, Wen Li, Shang Xiang, Xu Tan. Double layer programming model to the scheduling of remote sensing data processing tasks. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2019, 12 (4&5) : 1515-1526. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2019104 [15] Yicheng Liu, Yipeng Chen, Jun Wu, Xiao Wang. Periodic consensus in network systems with general distributed processing delays. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2021, 16 (1) : 139-153. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2021002 [16] Hongtruong Pham, Xiwen Lu. The inverse parallel machine scheduling problem with minimum total completion time. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (2) : 613-620. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.613 [17] Min Zhang, Gang Li. Multi-objective optimization algorithm based on improved particle swarm in cloud computing environment. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2019, 12 (4&5) : 1413-1426. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2019097 [18] Alireza Goli, Taha Keshavarz. Just-in-time scheduling in identical parallel machine sequence-dependent group scheduling problem. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021124 [19] Arminda Moreno-Díaz, Gabriel de Blasio, Moreno-Díaz Jr.. Distributed, layered and reliable computing nets to represent neuronal receptive fields. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2014, 11 (2) : 343-361. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.343 [20] Yining Cao, Chuck Jia, Roger Temam, Joseph Tribbia. Mathematical analysis of a cloud resolving model including the ice microphysics. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2021, 41 (1) : 131-167. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020219

2020 Impact Factor: 1.801