Optimal VM placement in distributed

cloud environment using MOEA/D

Arunkumar Gopu & Neelanarayanan

Venkataraman

Soft Computing
A Fusion of Foundations,
Methodologies and Applications

ISSN 1432-7643
Volume 23
Number 21

Soft Comput (2019) 23:11277-11296

DOI 10.1007/s00500-018-03686-6

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer
Nature. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
article, please use the accepted manuscript
version for posting on your own website. You
may further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Soft Computing (2019) 23:11277–11296
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-03686-6 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

METHODOLOGIES AND APPLICATION

Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/

D
Arunkumar Gopu1 • Neelanarayanan Venkataraman1

Published online: 18 December 2018

 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Virtual machine placement is the concept of hosting the virtual machines to appropriate physical servers so as to meet user
computation requirements. An optimal placement is one of the key concerns in green cloud computing. Virtual machine
placement in distributed cloud environment also imposes propagation time as a key for effective hosting of VM along with
CPU and memory resource constraints. In this paper, MOEA/D a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm is used to find a
non-dominated solution w.r.t. minimal wastage, minimal power consumption and less propagation delay. The proposed
algorithm has been implemented, tested and compared with the existing multi-objective approaches. The statistical analysis
of the simulation results proves that MOEA/D outperforms against the existing algorithms in distributed cloud VM
placement.

Keywords Distributed cloud  VM placement  MOEA/D  Multi-objective optimization  Pareto set

1 Introduction Compute Cloud (EC2) turn toward greening their data

Cloud computing has become one among the indispensable
computer paradigm over Internet. Cloud computing serves
in three major forms, namely, Infrastructure as a Service
(IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Software as a
Service (SaaS). In cloud, green computing has been
achieved in various aspects. One such aspect is virtual-
ization. Virtualization is the process of hosting one or more
virtual machines (VM) into a single machine so as to
reduce the power consumption. From user’s perspective, a
VM acts as an autonomous system. At the backend, these
VM are clubbed and hosted by minimal number of physical
machines so as to complete the user’s tasks. Cloud offers
the users to purchase the resources from cloud as much as
they require in order to minimize their financial expendi-
ture. Many companies like Amazon with its Elastic
Communicated by V. Loia.
& Arunkumar Gopu
arunkumar.goge@gmail.com
Neelanarayanan Venkataraman
neelanarayanan.v@vit.ac.in
1
School of Computing Science and Engineering, VIT
University, Chennai 600127, India
centers. These companies try to satisfy the users by
delivering their requested services with minimal number of
physical machines. From service providers’ point of view,
maximizing the profit with high QoS and minimal opera-
tional costs is a tedious task to accomplish yet has to be
performed effectively. Contribution of greening the data
centers in cloud inspires the researchers in all aspects so as
to come up with more number of QoS attributes in greening
concept. Power consumption is one among the major
concern in cloud computing since it is proportional to
operational costs. Moreover, in large-scale computing (i.e.,
cloud) more power consumption leads to global warming
issues like carbon dioxide and reliability of systems is yet
another serious issue in this regard. Wastage of machine
resources affects service providers in terms of financial
aspects. With these concerns, research has been carried out
and works were published in reputed journals (Beloglazov
and Buyya 2010, 2013; Dupont et al. 2012; Zhang et al.
2013; Speitkamp and Bichler 2010).
However, while hosting a VM in distributed cloud for-
mat, propagation delay is yet another QoS attribute which
plays vital role in response time which in turn provides
service accessibility. Hosting a VM with less response time
may lead to high energy consumption and high wastage of
CPU resources. This paper addresses the issue of hosting a

123
 Author's personal copy
11278
VM by a physical machine in distributed cloud environ-
ment in a multi-objective problem framework where
already minimizing CPU resources and minimum power
consumption are concerned using multi-objective evolu-
tionary algorithm—decomposition approach (Zhang and Li
2007). Multi-objective optimization has a vast range of
interests among the researchers in finding single solution
w.r.t. different aspects of a problem. Some of the appli-
cations of multi-objective optimization methods include
(Ahmadi et al. 2015a, b, c, d, e, f; Sadatsakkak et al.
2015a, b; Ahmadi and Ahmadi 2015a, b; Ahmadi et al.
2016a, b; Ahmadi et al. 2014a, b, c). The detailed view of
the problem and algorithm is given in the rest of the paper.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 holds the
literature study of existing algorithms addressing VM
placement. Section 3 states an example of VM placement
in distributed cloud environment and multi-objective
optimization properties. Section 4 holds the problem for-
mulation and objective modeling. Section 5 holds the
description of MOEA/D. Section 6 includes the experi-
mental results and statistical analysis of simulation results.
Section 7 concludes the proposed work.
2 Related work
In the year 2011, Mishra and Sahoo (2011) presented a
paper on the existing methods for effective VM placement
which in addition discussed the demerits of those existing
methods. Previously in the year 2010, Buyya et al. (2010)
presented a paper which discusses the existing challenges
in cloud in energy-efficient perspective. Recently in the
year 2015, Chowdhury et al. (2015) addressed the recent
techniques proposed for efficient VM placement on
appropriate physical machines. This literature consists of
proposed method for solving VM placement, the resources
considered, its pros and cons and the algorithms with which
the proposed outperforms.
Ghribi et al. (2013) proposed Exact Allocation and
Migration algorithm for effective VM placement. CPU
utilization is the resource considered in this proposed
system. Pros: The number of physical machine utilization
is highly reduced along with migration cost. Cons: Com-
putational complexity is high. It outperforms against the
best-fit heuristic algorithm. Bobroff et al. (2007) in 2007
proposed Measure–Forecast–Remap (MFP) which consid-
ered reducing number of physical machines as the objec-
tive. For depicting real-life application, a time interval s is
introduced in this concept. Pros: MFP meets the targets of
SLA and reduces the usage of physical machines. Cons:
The performance on considering more objectives is not
addressed. The result reflects that the proposed is better
than static algorithm. Enhanced FFD (Alahmadi et al.
123
A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman
2014) is proposed by Alahmadi et al. in the year 2014
which is an advanced version of FFD algorithm based on
bin packing concept. CPU utilization is the resource con-
sidered for VM host. From conventional FFD algorithm,
Enhanced FFD differs in terms of VM reuse. Pros: This
approach is more energy efficient and a significant
improvement in system throughput. Cons: SLA is violated
due to VM reuse strategy incorporation. This approach
outperforms over greedy algorithm, round robin and FFD
algorithms. Singh et al. (2008) in the year 2008 proposed
heaviest-first concept for effective server storage virtual-
ization with minimizing CPU utilization as objective
function. The predominant feature of this algorithm sets a
upper bound value for cost of relocating VM. Pros: A
substantial minimization on relocation cost has been
achieved. Cons: More number of bins are used for allo-
cating VM. The performance measures outrage the best-
and first-fit algorithms. Based on genetic algorithm, Tang
et al. (2007) proposed a variant of GA called GABA which
incorporates reconfigured searching module and request
forecasting module in it. Pros: It minimizes the number of
physical machines used for VM host and with improved
CPU utilization. Cons: solution space. This algorithm
outperforms in VM placement against TSSP07 approach
(Tang et al. 2007).
Min-Cut hierarchical clustering approach (Jiankang
et al. 2015) proposed by Jiankang et al. considers CPU
utilization and network bandwidth as the resources to be
minimized. In this concept, Maximum Link Allocation
(MLU) has been considered as an optimization phases and
VM are allowed to be reused. Pros: In terms of energy
consumption, it shows a considerable level of minimization
and the network traffic is highly reduced. Cons: Since the
VM can be migrated, the cost of migration becomes more.
It outperforms against BFD and random-based algorithms.
Based on stochastic packing, Wang et al. (2011) proposed
group packing algorithm which considers CPU utilization
and its bandwidth usage as resources for minimizing
physical machines. Pros: reduced physical machines for
hosting VM. Cons: Consideration of propagation delay can
be achievable. It outperforms against first fit, FFD and
harmonic algorithm. Chen et al. (2011) proposed VM
Sizing algorithm for effective VM placement which is
based on stochastic integer programming. The resources
considered for VM placement are CPU utilization and
memory. The overflow of server is monitored with a
probability of p. Pros: The number of physical machines
for hosting VM is highly reduced. Cons: With this aspect,
more number of resources can be considered by this
algorithm for better results. On comparing FFD algorithm,
VM Sizing performs better with reduced number of phys-
ical machine usage. Singh et al. (2008) in 2008 proposed
Vector Dot algorithm based on bin packing concept. A
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D
maximum of four resources are considered simultaneously
for effective VM placement which includes CPU utiliza-
tion, primary memory, network and input–output band-
width. Pros: The loads on server are maintained
dynamically by Vector Dot and management of overloaded
nodes is the significant features of Vector Dot. Cons:
Predictive and statistical models are supposed to be fol-
lowed which increases the delay while hosting and
migrating each VM. Vector Dot outperforms against the
heuristic methods such as best fit, first fit, worst fit and
relaxed best fit. Wood et al. (2009) proposed Sandpiper
method which is based on bin packing method. CPU uti-
lization, memory and network are the resources considered
in order to host VM. Pros: This method detects the hot spot
while placing VM, mitigates it and balances the load of
physical machines. Cons: It resizes the VM resources for
adapting it to the available physical machine and the mit-
igation process overheads. Recently in 2014, Song et al.
(2014) developed a bin packing-based algorithm VISBP.
The resources considered for hosting a VM are its CPU
utilization, memory and the network. Pros: As like in
sandpiper concept, the hot spot is identified and mitigated
in VISBP and the load is then balanced. Cons: SLA vio-
lation occurs. It is compared with sandpiper and Vector Dot
which results that the VISBP outrages two methods. Gao
et al. (2013) proposed VMPACS for efficient VM hosting.
Well-known ant colony system is used for solving this
optimization problem. CPU utilization and memory are the
resources considered for optimization in this paper. Pros:
Substantial minimization has been performed in terms of
number of physical machines utilized, power consumption
and wastage. Cons: Computational complexity is high.
VMPACS outrages MGGA, FFD and standard ACO.
On concerning the stated issues on each paper, we
proposed MOEA/D a multi-objective optimization algo-
rithm for addressing the issue of VM hosting in addition to
the agenda of placing VM in distributed cloud environ-
ment. The further section deals with placing VM in dis-
tributed cloud environment along with minimal resource
wastage and minimal CPU consumption.
3 Background
3.1 Example of VM placement in distributed
cloud environment
In distributed cloud environment, VM and servers that host
VM are located in different geographical regions. The task
is to allocate appropriate servers to VM so as to satisfy the
user needs with reduced propagation time. Let us consider
a distributed cloud environment as shown in Fig. 1.
11279
Providing an efficient and distributed cloud with mini-
mal propagation time gives a beneficial way from the point
of service providers where the less data transmission is
possible. Optimizing VM placement in distributed cloud
environment is an NP hard problem since the complexity of
the problem increases exponentially as the size of the
problem increases. For example, let us consider the dis-
tributed cloud environment in Fig. 1. Assume that the
server is capable of hosting two VM. The location of VM
and servers is denoted in the form of coordinates (x, y).
Based on Euclidean distance, the distance between each
server and VM is calculated and represented in matrix form
as
 
42:43 24:69 44:28
Distance matrix ¼
9:43 47:41 34:01
Each row represents a server, and columns represent the
VM. If the servers are allocated irrespective of propagation
delay between servers and VM, the data are to be trans-
ferred far away. In order to reduce the data traffic and for
quick response time, a VM can be hosted in order to
achieve minimal propagation delay. This process can be
achievable only if the servers have no restrictions on data
resources. But in practical hosts all servers have maximum
resource utilization threshold limit. Obtaining a well-de-
served solution to place the VM leads to multi-objective
optimization.
3.2 Multi-objective optimization
In this section, the predefined definition of multi-objective
optimization problem (Coello et al. 2007; Deb 2001) and
definition of Pareto dominance operators which leads a
guidance for our proposed work are given here.
Assume that a problem’s solution set Sol ¼
½s1 ; s2 ; . . .; sn  with n is the number of solutions. Each
 
solution si ¼ di;1 ; di;2 ; . . .; di;j ; . . .; di;m where d is the
number of decision variables. The intention of the algo-
! h i
rithm is to find a vector si ¼ si;1 ; si;2 ; . . .; si;m that satis-
fies u equality constraints ui ð~
sÞ ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; u, and v
inequality constraints vi ð~
sÞ ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; v so as to find
! h ! !
out an optimal solution f s ¼ f1 s ; f2 s ; . . .;
!
fk s  where k holds the number of objectives.
From the given search space G, Sol ¼ ½s1 ; s2 ; . . .; sn  is a
 
set of solutions. A solution si ¼ di;1 ; di;2 ; . . .; di;m is said
 
to dominate sj ¼ dj;1 ; dj;2 ; . . .; dj;m if and only if
   
fx !
si  f x !sj 8x 2 k and fx ! si \fx ! sj 9x 2 k and its
representation will be ! si  !sj such that i 6¼ j. Likewise,
solution si and solution sj are said to be non-dominated by
123
 Author's personal copy
11280 A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman

Fig. 1 VM placement w.r.t.

propagation delay

each other when neither ! si  !sj nor ! sj  ! sj and the 4 Problem formulation
! !
representation is si 4 sj .
A mere example is given for better notation of domi- As it is discussed earlier in Sect. 2 to place VM to a server
nated and non-dominated solutions in Fig. 2. Let us assume node, a three-dimensional characterization is denoted,
a multi-objective problem that holds f1 and f2 as objectives. namely, CPU, memory and propagation time. If more than
From the solution set Sol, three solutions !
s1 ; !
s2 and !
s3 are one VM is placed in a single server, then the CPU and
mapped in Fig. 2 with respect to their objective functions. memory utilization are taken as aggregation of allocated
From the definition stated above, it can be inferred that VM required resources. The propagation time for placing a
solutions !
s2 and !
s3 are dominated by solution ! s1 and it can VM to a server will be calculated based on the distance

! !
be denoted as s1  s2 ; s3 . Solutions s2 and !
! ! s3 are non- between them.
dominated to each other, and it can be denoted as ! s2 4s!3.
4.1 Resource wastage

Residual amount of CPU and RAM resources in each DC

varies for each solution in VM placement. Equation 2 gives
the mathematical representation to compute the resource
wastage in each server.
 CPU 
L  LRAM þe
i i
Wi ¼ ð1Þ
UiCPU þ UiRAM
where UiCPU and UiRAM represent the ratio of used resource
from the available resource of CPU and RAM, respec-
tively. LCPU
i and LRAM
i represent the residual amount of
resource from available resource of CPU and RAM.

4.2 Consumption of power

The recent literature studies show that CPU utilization of a

server is directly proportional to its power consumption
Fig. 2 Dominance relation (Fan et al. 2007). In our system design, the server gets

123
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D 11281

turned off when they enter into idle state. Hence, the 4.4 Objective formulation
mathematical representation of power consumption of
server i is defined as In this section, formulation of objectives for efficient VM
 active placement in distributed cloud environment has been
Pi  Pidle
i  UiCPU þ Pidle
i ; Ui [ 0
Poweri ¼ described. Given a set of physical machines (servers) i 2 I
0 otherwise
in which the VM j 2 J to be hosted. In our simulation
ð2Þ
environment, no VM are prepared so as to require two
where Pactive
i and Pidle
i denote the power consumption of ith servers to process the request.
server. The active and idle power of CPU is fixed as 215 1. Minimize CPU wastage
and 162 watts, respectively.
X
M X
M
Min Wi ¼
4.3 Propagation time i¼1 i¼1
2  PN    PN   3
 hPi  j¼1 xi;j: Rp;j  hMi  j¼1 xi;j: RM;j  þ e
In distributed cloud environment, propagation time of a 4yi  P   PN   5
N
x i;j: R p;j þ xi;j: R M;j
VM is one of the key factors that have to be considered for j¼1 j¼1

reducing the data transmission time and propagation delay ð4Þ

during file transfer or access. Propagation time is defined as
1 if VMj is allocated to DCi
the time taken to receive the first bit of sender by the xi;j ¼ ð5Þ
0 otherwise
receiver. Propagation time is highly dependent on trans-

mission medium. In distributed cloud environment, the VM 1 if DCi is used
yi ¼ ð6Þ
should be allocated based on minimal propagation delay so 0 otherwise
as to comfort the user in terms of speed. In our proposed
system, we consider wired physical medium for efficient where RM;j and Rp;j are the memory and CPU demand
data access. The range for data transmission in wired of each VM and hMi and hPi are the threshold value of
medium (optic fiber) is 2 * 108 m/second. The propagation each DC.
time can be formulated as 2. Minimize power consumption
distance X
M X
M
PDelayj ¼ ð3Þ Min Pi ¼
propagation speed i¼1 i¼1
" !#
Proposed system computes the distance between a VM  X
N 
yi  Pactive
i  Pidle
i  xi;j: Rp;j þ Pidle
i Þ
and server based on Euclidean distance. A random of ten
j¼1
different geographical regions were taken to place the
servers. The total number of servers is distributed uni- ð7Þ
formly in the allocated regions. VM requests are generated where Pactive and Pidle represent the average value of
i i
from random geographical regions. Based on the coordi- power utilized when the DC is used.
nates of server and VM, the distance between each server 3. Minimize propagation time
and VM is calculated and tabulated as
2 3 X
N
D1;1 . . . Dj;1 Min PDelayni;j 8i 2 M; 8j 2 N ð8Þ
6 D2;1 . . . . . . 7 n¼1
DistMatrix ¼ 64 ... ... ... 5
7

Di;1 . . . Di;j The data centers are placed in 10 different random

locations with (x, y) coordinates, and all the virtual
Based on this distance matrix (DistMatrix) using Eq. 5,
machines are placed in different locations from each other
the propagation delay (PDelay) will be calculated and
(i.e., for 100 instances, 100 data centers are placed in 10
stored in the matrix form as
2 3 different coordinates and all 100 VM are placed in different
PD1;1 . . . PDj;1 coordinates from each other). The distance between each
6 PD2;1 . . . . . . 7 data center and VM is calculated based on Euclidian dis-
PDelay ¼ 6 4 ...
7
... ... 5 tance matrix.
PDi;1 . . . PDi;j

123
 Author's personal copy
11282
5 Multi-objective evolutionary algorithm
based on decomposition (MOEA/D)
MOEA/D is a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm
which decomposes a multi-objective problem into N scalar
optimization subproblems in order to obtain an optimal
solution with respect to each objective simultaneously.
During iteration, optimal solutions are evolved for each
subproblem. These subproblems were evolved toward
optimal solution with the help of neighborhood subprob-
lems. Neighbor subproblem for any subproblem can be
identified based on the distance between their aggregated
coefficient vectors. In MOEA/D, each subproblem will get
optimized based on the information from its neighboring
subproblems. MOEA/D has significant remarks in solving
multi-objective problems based on the features listed.
A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman
neighborhood subproblems were computed and stored
BðiÞ ¼ fi1 ; i2 ; . . .iT g where i is the subproblem (k) and T
represents the number of neighbors. z is set as the initial
goal point ðz ¼ fz1 ; z2 ; . . .; zm gÞ where m is the number of
objectives. At initialization phase, VM sequence is ran-
domly generated based on random permutation. Later,
based on the objective function the fitness value of all
solutions was computed with respect to objectives. Suc-
cessive step after fitness evaluation comes the decompo-
sition cost calculation. For computing decomposition cost,
Tchebycheff Approach (Ahmadi et al. 2015a) is used.
5.2 Tchebycheff Approach
Computation of decomposition cost using Tchebycheff
Approach for N scalar optimization problem is of the form
 
• MOEA/D optimizes a multi-objective problem by
dividing it into N scalar subproblems. The difficulties
in non-decomposition approaches such as diversity
maintenance and fitness assignment were addressed in
decomposition-based MOEA.
• On comparing multi-objective problems solving meth-
ods in terms of computational complexity, MOEA/D
outperforms over NSGA-II and MOGLS (Zhang and Li
2007).
• For objective functions, normalization techniques can
be imposed in order to deal with scaled objectives.
5.1 MOEA/D on VMP
Solving VM placement problem in Sect. 3 is based on
MOEA/D. In VM placement problem, a feasible solution is
defined as placing all VM to DC’s. An optimal solution of
VM placement is defined as allocating all VM to DC’s with
minimal number of DC’s with respect to its minimal power
consumption, minimal wastage and minimal overall prop-
agation time.
MOEA/D works as follows. In preprocessing phase, it
creates the subproblems ðk1 ; k2 . . .kN Þ which are considered
as random weight vectors for each objective. External
archive (EP) is set to ;. Then, the distance between each of
the subproblems is calculated based on Euclidean distance.
Based on Euclidean distance between subproblems, the
123
minimizegte ðxjk; z Þ ¼ max ki fi ð xÞ  z 
i
where i 2 1  i  m. MOEA/D optimizes each subproblem
with respect to each objective on each iteration. The
decomposition cost gte for subproblem ki closer to kj : i 6¼ j
will be supportive for optimizing.
During evolution process, reproduction operators of GA,
namely, crossover and mutation process, take place for
generating new solutions. After the generation of new
solutions, based on the decomposition cost update the
neighbor list for each k. At the end of each iteration, EP
solutions are updated based on the dominance relation
discussed in Sect. 2. Pseudocode for solving distributed
VM placement problem using MOEA/D is given in
Algorithm 1. And a detailed illustration of MOEA/D is
given in Fig. 3.
5.3 Reproduction operator
Partially matched crossover (PMX) (Goldberg and Lingle
1985) operator is used as a reproductive operator for
exploiting the search space and for producing more number
of children. Based on the empirical results made over
available and feasible crossover operators, this operator has
been chosen. For mutation process, three-point mutation
has been chosen since the search space is large and more
number of combinations needs to be explored.
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D 11283

123
 Author's personal copy
11284 A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman

Fig. 3 A three-tier illustration of MOEA/D

123
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D
6 Performance evaluation
6.1 Experimental setup
In this section, the performance of proposed algorithm is
evaluated and compared in terms of given objective func-
tion results and also using performance indicators that
evaluate the solutions of multi-objective problems. For
comparing the results of proposed algorithm, other multi-
objective algorithms such as Min-Cut hierarchal clustering
(Min-Cut) (Jiankang et al. 2015), VM Sizing algorithm
(VM Sizing) (Chen et al. 2011), bin packing-based VISBP
(Song et al. 2014) and multi-objective ACS (ACS) (Gao
et al. 2013) were implemented under same simulation
environment and instances. All the algorithms are imple-
mented in MATLAB 9.1 with a system configuration of
Intel core i7 processor with 3.2 GHz speed and 6 GB
RAM. The simulation setup of distributed VM placement
using MOEA/D is given in Table 1.
For VM instances, a random CPU (RCPU ) and RAM
(RRAM ) resource requests are generated for 100 and 200
instances in combined manner. A linear correlation coef-
ficient for generation of resource instances is made for
uniform distribution for both RAM and CPU utilization
from server. In order to control correlation coefficients
probability, P value is used for tuning purpose. For each
instance of VM request, two reference values and five
correlation coefficients were used in the experimental
design. Two reference values include RCPU = RRAM = 25%
and 45%, respectively. Distribution of CPU and memory
utilization is as follows (Table 2).
A maximum resource of 90% from server can be
accessed by a VM instance. Based on this limitation of
server access, the instances are generated so as to request
the resources within this constraint. Probability value for
all reference values is fixed as 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1. For
reference value RCPU = RRAM = 25%, on setting P value as
above, we obtained the average linear correlation coeffi-
cients as - 0.753, - 0.362, - 0.054, 0.37, 0.752 for each
Table 1 Parameters for distributed VM placement using MOEA/D
Variables Range
Population size (Npop) 10
Neighbors (T) 8
NVM 100 and 200
Nobj 3
EP 10
Runs 20
Maximum iterations (MaxIT) 100
11285
Table 2 Reference values for simulation setup
Reference value Distributions
RCPU = RRAM = 25% [0, 50%)
RCPU = RRAM = 45% [0, 90%)
set of instances. For RCPU = RRAM = 45%, it is - 0.756,
- 0.382, - 0.059, 0.396, 0.750 for each set of instances.
For placing VM in distributed cloud environment,
propagation time between VM and server of different
geographical locations is considered as an objective in this
proposed system. For propagation time between each VM
and server, 10 different locations are chosen from geo-
graphical region for placing the servers. The VM requests
are generated randomly from anywhere in the world, and
their geographical locations are noted. Based on this
information, a distance matrix (DistMatrix) is created as it
is discussed in Sect. 4. From the distance matrix, based on
Eq. 4 the propagation time for each pair of VM and server
was computed and stored. When a sequence of VM solu-
tion is generated, the sequence is then used to calculate the
total propagation time to host all VM by distributed ser-
vers. It is assumed that the VM instances are hosted by
servers sequentially.
6.2 Performance indicators for multi-objective
problems
To evaluate the proposed algorithm in terms of multi-ob-
jective optimization perspective, two unary performance
indicators were used in this section. 1. Overall Non-
Dominated Vector Generation (ONVG) (Van veldhuizen
1999) which gives the cardinality of External Archive 2.
Spacing (Sp) (Schott 1995) results the diversity achieved
through the algorithm.
6.2.1 Overall Non-Dominated Vector Generation (ONVG)
ONVG results the number of solutions in the External
Archive that depends on Pareto front (Miettinen 2012).
ONVG can be represented as
ONVG ¼ jEPj 2 PF ð9Þ
where PF refers to the Pareto front and || refers to the
cardinality measure.
123
 Author's personal copy
11286 A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman

6.2.2 Spacing (Sp) 6.3.1 ANOVA

Spacing (Sp) is a unary performance indicator which
denotes the diversity between end population solutions.
Values near to 0 in Sp state that the algorithm searches the
search space in diversified manner. Sp can be mathemati-
cally represented as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u 1 XjPFj
Sp ¼ t
2
ðd  di Þ ð10Þ
jPFj  1 i¼1
where d is defined as the mean value of d.
6.3 Performance analysis
For analyzing the performance of proposed system over
existing algorithms, statistical tools such as ANOVA
(analysis of variance) and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
(DMRT) are used. A description on these two tools is given
below. These tests are performed for the results of power
consumption, wastage and propagation delay which are
tabulated in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6.
For performing analysis of results which are tabulated,
ANOVA has been used in order to perform validation.
ANOVA test results whether there exists a significant
difference between the group of samples given. One-way
ANOVA test is performed in this paper to determine
whether the algorithm group results have a significant
effect over other. In this paper, ANOVA test has been
performed with a significant level of 95%. If Sig. value is
lesser than a (critical) value (0.05), then H0 (null hypoth-
esis) should be rejected and H1 (alternate hypothesis)
should be accepted. This shows that the given group of
values has a significant difference between each other, and
hence, post hoc tests can be performed. Duncan’s Multiple
Range Test has been used as post hoc test analyzer. In case
if Sig. value is higher than 0.05, null hypothesis (H0)
should be accepted and post hoc tests cannot be performed.

Table 3 Experimental results of

Corr. ALG Performance measures w.r.t. objective functions Performance indicators
RCPU = RRAM = 25% for 100
VM instances Power (W) Wastage P.D. (s) ONGV SP

- 0.753 Min-Cut 8346.19 43.04 3.54 17.30 0.55

VM Sizing 7451.34 46.15 2.69 18.46 0.62
VISBP 7510.26 37.43 2.41 19.55 0.53
ACS 7253.19 27.27 2.46 19.25 0.39
MOEA/D 7039.37 20.79 1.96 32.14 0.18
- 0.362 Min-Cut 7542.79 41.70 3.75 20.23 0.74
VM Sizing 8305.15 37.53 2.84 17.73 0.57
VISBP 7811.61 28.03 2.38 18.28 0.53
ACS 7171.71 26.35 2.31 20.94 0.49
MOEA/D 6822.15 19.72 1.93 30.51 0.13
- 0.054 Min-Cut 7546.93 40.68 3.36 18.25 0.63
VM Sizing 7830.59 33.70 3.07 16.36 0.56
VISBP 8037.90 24.02 2.63 19.13 0.52
ACS 7658.42 30.92 2.36 24.97 0.40
MOEA/D 7528.42 18.64 1.88 34.94 0.16
0.37 Min-Cut 7466.55 36.91 3.11 13.86 0.57
VM Sizing 7163.69 30.17 2.98 18.62 0.43
VISBP 6928.42 28.71 2.32 19.27 0.40
ACS 7425.47 16.48 2.22 18.89 0.45
MOEA/D 6648.55 15.61 1.75 28.08 0.14
0.752 Min-Cut 7621.24 30.94 3.06 18.62 0.50
VM Sizing 7324.92 26.53 3.14 21.81 0.37
VISBP 6961.15 27.59 2.40 18.33 0.39
ACS 7343.51 22.83 2.21 25.11 0.28
MOEA/D 6929.50 13.64 1.74 37.32 0.13

123
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D 11287

Table 4 Experimental results of

Corr. ALG Performance measures w.r.t. objective functions Performance indicators
RCPU = RRAM = 45% for 100
VM instances Power (W) Wastage P.D. (s) ONGV SP

- 0.756 Min-Cut 13,464.35 56.72 3.34 23.89 0.60

VM Sizing 12,808.20 49.61 2.88 24.29 0.59
VISBP 12,980.63 38.38 2.26 19.38 0.56
ACS 12,743.12 36.91 2.45 28.29 0.45
MOEA/D 12,268.23 27.15 1.90 29.68 0.15
- 0.382 Min-Cut 13,340.66 42.30 3.76 18.67 0.70
VM Sizing 13,591.07 44.18 2.98 19.48 0.63
VISBP 13,270.01 37.02 2.11 23.34 0.46
ACS 12,604.94 41.26 2.10 24.84 0.46
MOEA/D 12,570.04 30.23 1.71 34.10 0.17
- 0.059 Min-Cut 12,904.18 48.12 3.13 19.76 0.61
VM Sizing 13,489.06 36.20 3.06 22.70 0.55
VISBP 13,482.96 38.32 2.77 22.26 0.47
ACS 12,784.77 35.46 2.27 24.37 0.33
MOEA/D 12,574.33 31.29 1.59 37.78 0.14
0.396 Min-Cut 12,754.43 45.51 3.00 20.01 0.58
VM Sizing 12,776.51 38.11 3.11 23.13 0.41
VISBP 12,870.28 36.16 2.47 24.76 0.39
ACS 12,960.27 33.14 1.94 21.01 0.36
MOEA/D 12,239.77 27.86 1.64 28.25 0.21
0.75 Min-Cut 13,051.90 41.24 2.86 25.13 0.53
VM Sizing 12,962.14 35.92 3.13 23.37 0.34
VISBP 13,295.74 31.25 2.42 19.88 0.41
ACS 12,219.24 27.16 2.23 22.01 0.34
MOEA/D 12,101.38 22.14 1.81 39.46 0.12

6.3.2 Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test is a multiple comparison
procedure which uses studentized range statistics for
comparing the mean values of sets. It computes numerical
boundaries for classification of differences between any
two or more sets which are either significant or non-
significant. DMRT ranks the sets in increasing or
decreasing order based on user preference.
6.3.3 Performance analysis w.r.t. power consumption
Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10 show the statistical analysis of
algorithms simulated for testing. Table 7 holds statistical
analysis of ANOVA on power consumption of 100 VM
instances for RCPU = RRAM = 25%.
Table 7 states that the Sig. value is 0.068 which is
higher than critical value 0.05. As per the statistical anal-
ysis property, there is no significant difference between the
groups, and hence, H0 should be accepted and H1 has to be
rejected. Since H0 is accepted, post hoc tests cannot be
performed.
Table 8(a) and (b) shows the statistical analysis of
ANOVA and DMRT on power consumption of 100 VM
instances for RCPU = RRAM = 45%, respectively. From
Table 8(a) Sig. value, it can be inferred that there exists
significant difference between the sets denoted. Hence, null
hypothesis H0 has been rejected and alternate hypothesis
H1 is accepted. Since H0 is rejected, DMRT is performed
for Table 8(a) instance and the result shows that MOEA/D
ranks first among the compared algorithms.
Tables 9 and 10 reflect the statistical analysis on power
consumption for 200 VM instances of RCPU = RRAM =
25% and RCPU = RRAM = 45%, respectively.
As per the results of ANOVA analysis in Table 9(a)
w.r.t. power consumption, the Sig. value is less than 0.05
which rejected H0 and accepted alternate hypothesis H1 and
further shows that there exists significant difference among
the mean values of compared algorithms. Since H0 is
rejected based on the results in Table 9(a), DMRT has been
performed on power consumption of 200 VM instances for
RCPU = RRAM = 25%. Table 9(b) presents the results of
DMRT for specified set of results. The post hoc analysis
shows that two homogenous groups can be formed w.r.t.

123
 Author's personal copy
11288 A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman

Table 5 Experimental results of

Corr. ALG Performance measures w.r.t. objective functions Performance indicators
RCPU = RRAM = 25% for 200
VM instances Power (W) Wastage P.D. (s) ONGV SP

- 0.753 Min-Cut 14,644.47 30.19 6.42 13.81 0.65

VM Sizing 13,556.32 24.37 6.23 19.75 0.58
VISBP 13,317.24 19.29 5.88 17.71 0.52
ACS 12,714.79 10.94 5.43 23.03 0.36
MOEA/D 11,793.16 7.77 5.07 28.40 0.14
- 0.362 Min-Cut 13,200.87 26.41 6.31 19.12 0.66
VM Sizing 14,093.52 23.24 6.05 20.65 0.56
VISBP 13,694.22 15.56 5.91 21.58 0.40
ACS 12,886.42 9.16 5.55 21.22 0.38
MOEA/D 12,131.41 5.40 5.01 30.38 0.17
- 0.054 Min-Cut 13,245.63 20.79 6.33 18.99 0.57
VM Sizing 13,579.62 17.94 5.98 16.84 0.49
VISBP 13,757.56 10.64 5.87 18.78 0.39
ACS 13,076.25 8.30 5.11 22.75 0.29
MOEA/D 12,662.99 3.40 4.42 30.26 0.16
0.37 Min-Cut 12,441.89 19.02 6.16 17.60 0.50
VM Sizing 12,354.07 14.75 5.97 19.55 0.43
VISBP 12,694.56 9.98 5.58 19.40 0.39
ACS 12,861.60 7.57 5.17 22.35 0.30
MOEA/D 11,695.02 3.38 4.38 26.13 0.13
0.752 Min-Cut 13,164.92 11.11 6.02 19.33 0.49
VM Sizing 12,509.23 10.11 5.82 22.51 0.40
VISBP 12,609.66 6.94 5.41 22.59 0.35
ACS 12,227.70 4.67 4.75 20.64 0.29
MOEA/D 11,383.78 1.86 4.26 35.97 0.08

mean values of compared algorithms. MOEA/D forms the
best performing subset among the given algorithms with
respect to power consumption.
Table 10 shows the ANOVA result analysis on 200 VM
instances power consumption for RCPU = RRAM = 45%.
Sig. value in Table 10 is greater than critical value (0.05);
hence, null hypothesis H0 is accepted which results that
there is no significant difference among the algorithms
stated. Hence, DMRT analysis cannot be performed for 200
VM power consumption of CPU and memory resources
which equal 45%.
6.3.4 Performance analysis w.r.t. CPU and memory
wastage
Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 hold the statistical analysis on
CPU wastage of 100 VM instances and 200 VM instances.
Table 11(a) shows ANOVA statistical results on wastage
of 100 VM instances for RCPU = RRAM = 25%. The Sig.
value states that there exists significant difference in terms
of mean values between algorithms on CPU wastage.
Hence, null hypothesis H0 is rejected and alternate
hypothesis H1 is accepted.
Table 11(a) results indicate that H0 has been rejected,
and thus, post hoc analysis is possible. Table 11(b) depicts
DMRT results for intended results in Table 11(a). DMRT
in Table 11(b) shows that four homogenous groups are
formed w.r.t. CPU wastage in terms of its mean values.
Table 12(a) shows the ANOVA results on CPU wastage
resources of 100 VM instances for RCPU = RRAM = 45%.
Sig. value in Table 12(a) shows that there exists significant
difference in mean values w.r.t. CPU wastage. This rejects
null hypothesis H0 and accepts alternate hypothesis H1.
Hence, post hoc analysis is performed and results are tab-
ulated in Table 12(b). The DMRT results state MOEA/D
outperforms when compared to other algorithms. Three
homogenous groups are formed w.r.t. CPU wastage in
terms of its mean values.
Table 13(a) depicts the results of ANOVA on CPU
wastage of 200 VM instances for RCPU = RRAM = 25%.
Since Table 13(a) Sig. value is less than the critical values
of ANOVA (0.05), it shows there is significant difference
in mean values from obtained results. This rejects null

123
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D 11289

Table 6 Experimental results of

Corr. ALG Performance measures w.r.t. objective functions Performance indicators
RCPU = RRAM = 45% for 200
VM instances Power (W) Wastage P.D. (s) ONGV SP

- 0.756 Min-Cut 25,658.336 35.85 6.45 21.27 0.52

VM Sizing 24,315.965 28.31 6.24 21.20 0.56
VISBP 24,118.35 22.24 5.91 20.48 0.47
ACS 24,050.266 16.77 5.22 26.42 0.40
MOEA/D 22,692.366 12.68 5.00 31.69 0.14
- 0.382 Min-Cut 24,759.281 31.93 6.50 20.87 0.65
VM Sizing 25,116.284 27.34 6.09 21.82 0.49
VISBP 25,062.621 16.98 6.09 26.07 0.45
ACS 23,722.937 18.36 5.43 24.87 0.35
MOEA/D 23,593.826 8.18 5.02 35.42 0.11
- 0.059 Min-Cut 23,994.667 27.51 6.51 22.44 0.49
VM Sizing 25,002.69 24.44 6.11 23.83 0.49
VISBP 24,822.581 19.16 5.95 24.87 0.35
ACS 23,845.559 15.32 5.29 26.94 0.30
MOEA/D 24,109.9 9.35 4.24 40.89 0.10
0.396 Min-Cut 23,266.133 23.73 6.03 17.33 0.53
VM Sizing 23,038.518 17.78 6.07 20.34 0.40
VISBP 23,810.874 12.72 5.72 19.63 0.32
ACS 23,932.118 577.84 5.00 24.87 0.31
MOEA/D 22,818.902 10.54 4.30 29.38 0.14
0.75 Min-Cut 23,859.302 20.34 6.01 18.85 0.44
VM Sizing 23,789.917 17.17 5.54 20.65 0.30
VISBP 23,975.722 14.44 5.39 24.53 0.30
ACS 23,121.413 11.77 4.80 22.06 0.26
MOEA/D 22,893.875 10.25 4.10 36.34 0.09

Table 7 ANOVA-based result

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
analyses of 100 VM instances
power consumption for ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 25%
Power
Between groups 1,520,461 4 380,115.2 2.589912 0.068
Within groups 2,935,352 20 146,767.6
Total 4,455,812 24

hypothesis H0 and accepts alternate hypothesis H1. Hence,
post hoc analysis is performed and results are tabulated in
Table 13(b). The DMRT results state MOEA/D and ACS
algorithms outperform when compared to other algorithms.
Four homogenous groups are formed w.r.t. CPU wastage in
terms of its mean values.
Table 14 shows ANOVA results on CPU wastage of 200
VM instances for RCPU = RRAM = 45%. The Sig. value
(0.458) is higher than the critical value (0.05). Hence, null
hypothesis H0 is accepted which shows that no significant
difference lies in the CPU wastage results in Table 6.
DMRT analysis cannot be performed for this result since
H0 is rejected.
6.3.5 Performance analysis w.r.t. CPU and propagation
delay
Tables 15, 16, 17 and 18 hold the statistical analysis of the
given dataset w.r.t. propagation delay. Table 15(a) holds
the ANOVA results on propagation delay of 100 VM
instances for RCPU = RRAM = 25%.
Sig. value in Table 15(a) is less than the critical value of
ANOVA (0.05). It states that there exists a significant
difference in the mean value of propagation delay between
each of the algorithms. Hence, the null hypothesis H0 is
rejected which made DMRT possible to find out the
homogenous groups between algorithms.

123
 Author's personal copy
11290 A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman

Table 8 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 100 VM
instances power consumption (a) ANOVA
for RCPU = RRAM = 45%, (b)
Power
DMRT-based result analyses of
100 VM instances power Between groups 2,636,405.3 4 659,101.3196 7.8136891 0.001
consumption for Within groups 1,687,042.6 20 84,352.13028
RCPU = RRAM = 45% Total 4,323,447.9 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 1.24E?04
ACS 5 1.27E?04
Min-Cut 5 1.31E?04
VM Sizing 5 1.31E?04
VISBP 5 1.32E?04
Sig. 0.105 0.698

Table 9 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 200 VM
instances power consumption (a) ANOVA
for RCPU = RRAM = 25%, (b)
Power
DMRT-based result analyses of
200 VM instances power Between groups 6,747,134 4 1,686,783.6 4.583,034 0.009
consumption for Within groups 7,360,990 20 368,049.511
RCPU = RRAM = 25% Total 14,108,125 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 11,933.272
ACS 5 1.28E?04
VISBP 5 1.32E?04
VM Sizing 5 1.32E?04
Min-Cut 5 1.33E?04
Sig. 1 1.76E-01

Table 10 ANOVA-based result

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
analyses of 200 VM instances
power consumption for ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 45%
Power
Between groups 2,636,405.3 4 1,199,505.8 2.490573 0.076
Within groups 1,687,042.6 20 481,618.388
Total 4,323,447.9 24

Table 15(b) shows DMRT results for Table 15(a) dataset. total of four homogenous groups are formed in terms of its
From Table 15(b), it can be inferred MOEA/D outperforms mean values.
and ranks high when compared to other algorithms and a Table 16 holds the statistical analysis on propagation
delay of 100 VM instances for RCPU = RRAM = 45%.

123
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D 11291

Table 11 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 100 VM
instances wastage for (a) ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 25%, (b)
Wastage
DMRT-based result analyses of
100 VM instances wastage for Between groups 1365.42 4 341.3551 11.85969 0.000
RCPU = RRAM = 25% Within groups 575.6562 20 28.78281
Total 1941.076 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2 3 4

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 17.68
ACS 5 24.77
VISBP 5 29.156 29.156
VM Sizing 5 34.816 34.816
Min-Cut 5 38.654
Sig. 1 0.210876 0.1108794 0.2713865

Table 12 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 100 VM
instances wastage for ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 45%, (b)
Wastage
DMRT-based result analyses of
100 VM instances wastage for Between groups 1005.4331 4 251.35826 10.324558 0.000
RCPU = RRAM = 45% Within groups 486.91336 20 24.345668
Total 1492.3464 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2 3

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 27.734
ACS 5 34.786
VISBP 5 36.226
VM Sizing 5 40.804 40.804
Min-Cut 5 46.778
Sig. 1 0.081684 0.06999

Table 16(a) shows the ANOVA results of the mentioned
dataset, and from the results (i.e., Sig. value \ critical
value) it can be inferred that significant different lies
between algorithms w.r.t. mean values of propagation
delay. Hence, the null hypothesis H0 has been rejected
followed by accepting alternate hypothesis H1.
Results in Table 16(a) Sig. value reject H0, and thus,
DMRT has been analyzed for the given results and is
tabulated in Table 16(b). The results state that MOEA/D
outperforms when compared to other algorithms followed
by ACS and VSIBP which lie under same subset and a total
of three homogenous groups are formed in this table.
Table 17(a) consists of ANOVA results on propagation
delay of 200 VM instances for RCPU = RRAM = 25%. Sig.
value in Table 17(a) results less than critical value which
states there is significant difference between the mean
values of algorithms. As per the property of ANOVA since
the Sig. value is less than critical value, the null hypothesis
H0 has been rejected.
Since Table 17(a) Sig. value is less than the critical
value, DMRT has been analyzed for finding the perfor-
mance of each algorithm individually. Table 17(b) shows
the DMRT results of VM instance of prescribed dataset.
The results state that the proposed algorithm MOEA/D

123
 Author's personal copy
11292 A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman

Table 13 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 200 VM
instances wastage for (a) ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 25%, (b)
Wastage
DMRT-based result analyses of
200 VM instances wastage for Between groups 983.6271 4 245.90677 9.9688115 0.000
RCPU = RRAM = 25% Within groups 493.35224 20 24.667612
Total 1476.9793 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2 3 4

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 4.362
ACS 5 8.128 8.128
VISBP 5 12.482 12.482
VM Sizing 5 18.082 18.082
Min-Cut 5 21.504
Sig. 0.2445756 0.1809771 0.0898112 0.2889314

Table 14 ANOVA-based result

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
analyses of 200 VM instances
wastage for ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 45%
Wastage
Between groups 47931.621 4 11,982.905 0.9461891 0.458
Within groups 253,287.75 20 12,664.387
Total 301,219.37 24

Table 15 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 100 VM
instances propagation delay for (a) ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 25%, (b)
Propagation delay
DMRT-based result analyses of
100 VM instances propagation Between groups 6.86032 4 1.71508 56.391136 0.000
delay for RCPU = RRAM = 25% Within groups 0.60828 20 0.030414
Total 7.4686 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2 3 4

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 1.852
ACS 5 2.312
VISBP 5 2.428
VM Sizing 5 2.944
Min-Cut 5 3.364
Sig. 1 0.3054798 1 1

outperforms against the compared algorithms. Four Table 18(a) shows the statistical ANOVA results of poin-
homogenous groups are formed on performing DMRT. ted dataset. Since Sig. value in Table 18(a) is less than
Table 18 depicts statistical analyses on propagation ANOVA critical value, it can be stated that there exists a
delay of 200 VM instances for RCPU = RRAM = 45%. significant difference in between the mean values of

123
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D 11293

Table 16 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 100 VM
instances propagation delay for (a) ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 45%, (b)
Propagation delay
DMRT-based result analyses of
100 VM instances propagation Between groups 7.450384 4 1.862596 37.652543 0.000
delay for RCPU = RRAM = 45% Within groups 0.98936 20 0.049468
Total 8.439744 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2 3

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 1.73
ACS 5 2.198
VISBP 5 2.406
VM Sizing 5 3.032
Min-Cut 5 3.218
Sig. 1 0.1548065 0.2010011

Table 17 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 200 VM
instances propagation delay for (a) ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 25%, (b)
Propagation delay
DMRT-based result analyses of
200 VM instances propagation Between groups 8.507336 4 2.126834 31.363682 0.000
delay for RCPU = RRAM = 25% Within groups 1.35624 20 0.067812
Total 9.863576 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2 3 4

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 4.628
ACS 5 5.202
VISBP 5 5.73
VM Sizing 5 6.01 6.0100
Min-Cut 5 6.2480
Sig. 1 1 0.104 0.164

propagation delay. This rejects null hypothesis H0 and 6.4 Discussion

accepts alternate hypothesis H1. Table 18(b) tabulates the
DMRT results of Table 18(a) pointed instances.
Table 18(b) presents the results of DMRT for specified
set of results. The post hoc analysis shows that four
homogenous group can be formed w.r.t. mean values of
compared algorithms. MOEA/D forms the best performing
subset among the given algorithms with respect to propa-
gation delay.
The results of the proposed algorithm are not only mea-
sured using the standard metrics but also using the statis-
tical tools such as ANOVA and DMRT. Inference from the
statistical tools is discussed in this section.
Results from Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10 show the impact of
proposed MOEA/D with different instances of VM and
different utilization levels of CPU and RAM in terms of
power consumption. For small instances of VM with dif-
ferent utilization levels (Table 8(b)), MOEA/D acquires its
best by forming homogeneous group with the sharing of

123
 Author's personal copy
11294 A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman

Table 18 (a) ANOVA-based

Source factor Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
result analyses of 200 VM
instances propagation delay for (a) ANOVA
RCPU = RRAM = 45%, (b)
Propagation delay
DMRT-based result analyses of
200 VM instances propagation Between groups 10.200656 4 2.550164 27.120172 0.000
delay for RCPU = RRAM = 45% Within groups 1.88064 20 0.094032
Total 12.081296 24

Algorithms N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2 3 4

(b) Duncan test

MOEA/D 5 4.532
ACS 5 5.148
VISBP 5 5.812
VM Sizing 5 6.01 6.01
Min-Cut 5 6.3
Sig. 1 1 0.3194775 0.15

similarity only with ACS. This shows that MOEA/D shows
a significant difference when it is compared to existing
algorithms Min-Cut, VM Sizing and VISBP. For large
instances of VM on CPU and RAM utilization of 25%
(Table 9(b)), MOEA/D forms a standalone homogenous
group which implicates that it has a significant difference
against all the compared algorithms. However, for 100 VM
instances with CPU, RAM utilization of 25% (Table 7),
and for 200 VM instances with CPU, RAM utilization of
45% (Table 10), MOEA/D fails to show the significant
difference, and hence, the algorithm needs to be impro-
vised by tuning the parameters which support for finding
the solution to minimize overall power consumption for
different levels of VM instances on different utilization
schema.
Results from Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 denote the pos-
itive impact of MOEA/D on CPU and RAM wastage for
different VM instances with different utilization levels. For
small-scale VM instances with 100 VM on both the uti-
lization levels of CPU, RAM with 25% (Table 11(b)) and
45% (Table 12(b)), the proposed MOEA/D outperforms all
existing algorithms by forming standalone homogenous
group when compared with ACS, VISBP, VM Sizing and
Min-Cut. And for large-scale VM instances on CPU, RAM
utilization with 25% (Table 13(b)), MOEA/D forms a
homogenous group by sharing it with ACS which shows
that there exists significant difference when MOEA/D
results are compared with VISBP, VM Sizing and Min-Cut.
However, for large VM instances with 45% of RAM, CPU
utilization MOEA/D fails to show a significant difference
among the existing algorithms.
Results from Tables 15, 16, 17 and 18 clearly illustrate
the positive impact of MOEA/D on propagation delay in
VM placement. For all the instances of VM with different
levels of utilization (Tables 15(b), 16(b), 17(b) and
Table 18(b)), MOEA/D outperforms all the existing algo-
rithms by forming a standalone homogenous group with
ranking first with less propagation delay. In this paper, the
overall procedure is to include the new objective called
propagation delay on VM placement and this MOEA/D has
been especially tuned to reduce the overall propagation
delay, and hence, it shows a significant improvement in all
the instances. Thus, the network propagation delay has
been efficiently handled along with the existing objectives
in the literature using MOEA/D.
7 Conclusion
Hosting VM in distributed cloud environment is one among
the predominant issue in deploying cloud with green
computing. In this paper, a new paradigm of distributed
cloud environment, namely, propagation delay, has been
addressed as a constraint along with CPU and memory
utilizations. The aim of this proposal is to find a non-
dominated solution which simultaneously addresses all
three stated objectives. Proposed MOEA/D has been tested
with the instances stated in the literature along with an
added resource propagation delay. The results are com-
pared with the existing algorithms presented in the litera-
ture. For analyzing the performance of algorithms,
ANOVA and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test statistical
tools were used. The results show that the proposed

123
 Author's personal copy
Optimal VM placement in distributed cloud environment using MOEA/D
MOEA/D outperforms over existing algorithms on VM
hosting.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors certify that they have no affiliations
with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial
interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials
discussed in this manuscript.
References
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA (2015a) Thermodynamic analysis and
optimization of an irreversible radiative type heat engine by
using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. Int J Ambient
Energy 37:403–408
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA (2015b) Thermodynamic analysis and
optimization of an irreversible Ericsson cryogenic refrigerator
cycle. Energy Convers Manag 89C:147–155
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mehrpooya M, Hosseinzade H, Feidt M
(2014a) Thermodynamic and thermo-economic analysis and
optimization of performance of irreversible four-temperature-
level absorption refrigeration. Energy Converg Manag
88C:1051–1059
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mohammadi AH, Feidt M, Pourkiaei SM
(2014b) Multi-objective optimization of an irreversible Stirling
cryogenic refrigerator cycle. Energy Convers Manag 82:351–360
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mohammadi AH, Mehrpooya M, Feidt M
(2014c) Thermodynamic optimization of Stirling heat pump
based on multiple. Energy Convers Manag 80:319–328
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Sadatsakkak SA (2015a) Thermodynamic
analysis and performance optimization of irreversible Carnot
refrigerator by using multi objective evolutionary algorithms
(MOEAs). Renew Sustain Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.07.006
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Shafaei A, Ashouri M, Toghyani S
(2015b) Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of the
Atkinson engine by using NSGA-II. Int J Low Carbon Technol
11:317–324
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Bayat R, Ashouri M, Feidt M (2015c)
Thermo-economic optimization of Stirling heat pump by using
non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. Energy Convers
Manag 91:315–322
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mehrpooya M, Sameti M (2015d)
Thermo-ecological analysis and optimization performance of
an irreversible three-heat-source absorption heat pump. Energy
Convers Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.11.
021
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Feidt M (2015e) Thermodynamic analysis
and evolutionary algorithm based on multi-objective optimiza-
tion of performance of irreversible four-temperature-level
absorption refrigeration. Mech Ind 16:207
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mehrpooya M, Pourkiaei SM, Khalili M
(2015f) Thermodynamic analysis and evolutionary algorithm
based on multi-objective optimization of Rankine cycle heat
engine. Int J Ambient Energy 37:363–371
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Mehrpooya M (2016a) Investigation of
design parameters effect on power output and thermal efficiency
of the Stirling engine thermodynamic analysis. Int J Low Carbon
Technol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctu030
11295
Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Feidt M (2016b) Performance optimiza-
tion of a solar-driven multi-step irreversible Brayton cycle based
on a multi-objective genetic algorithm. Oil Gas Sci Technol
1:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2014028
Alahmadi A, Alnowiser A, Zhu MM, Che D, Ghodous P (2014)
Enhanced first-fit decreasing algorithm for energy-aware job
scheduling in cloud. In: 2014 international conference on
computational science and computational intelligence (CSCI),
vol 2. IEEE, pp 69–74
Beloglazov A, Buyya R (2010) Energy efficient resource management
in virtualized cloud data centers. In: Proceedings of the 2010
10th IEEE/ACM international conference on cluster, cloud and
grid computing. IEEE Computer Society, Washington
Beloglazov A, Buyya R (2013) Managing overloaded hosts for
dynamic consolidation of virtual machines in cloud data centers
under quality of service constraints. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib
Syst 24(7):1366–1379
Bobroff N, Kochut A, Beaty K (2007) Dynamic placement of virtual
machines for managing sla violations. In: 10th IFIP/IEEE
international symposium on integrated network management,
2007. IM’07. IEEE
Buyya R, Beloglazov A, Abawajy J (2010) Energy-efficient manage-
ment of data center resources for cloud computing: a vision,
architectural elements, and open challenges. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1006.0308
Chen M, Zhang H, Su YY, Wang X, Jiang G, Yoshihira K (2011)
Effective VM sizing in virtualized data centers. In: 2011 IFIP/
IEEE international symposium on integrated network manage-
ment (IM). IEEE, pp 594–601
Chowdhury MR, Mahmud MR, Rahman RM (2015) Study and
performance analysis of various VM placement strategies. In:
2015 16th IEEE/ACIS international conference on software
engineering, artificial intelligence, networking and parallel/
distributed computing (SNPD). IEEE
Coello CAC, Lamont GB, Van Veldhuizen DA (2007) Evolutionary
algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, vol 5. Springer,
New York
Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary
algorithms. Wiley, New York
Dupont C, Schulze T, Giuliani G, Somov A, Hermenier F (2012) An
energy aware framework for virtual machine placement in cloud
federated data centres. In: 2012 third international conference on
future energy systems: where energy, computing and commu-
nication meet (e-energy). IEEE, pp 1–10
Fan X, Weber W-D, Barroso LA (2007) Power provisioning for a
warehouse-sized computer. In: ACM SIGARCH computer
architecture news, vol 35, no 2. ACM, New York
Gao Y, Guan H, Qi Z, Hou Y, Liu L (2013) A multi-objective ant
colony system algorithm for virtual machine placement in cloud
computing. J Comput Syst Sci 79(8):1230–1242
Ghribi C, Hadji M, Zeghlache D (2013) Energy efficient vm
scheduling for cloud data centers: exact allocation and migration
algorithms. In: 2013 13th IEEE/ACM international symposium
on cluster, cloud and grid computing (CCGrid). IEEE
Goldberg DE, Lingle R (1985) Alleles, loci, and the traveling
salesman problem. In: Proceedings of an international confer-
ence on genetic algorithms and their applications, vol 154.
Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Jiankang D, Hongbo W, Shiduan C (2015) Energy-performance
tradeoffs in IaaS cloud with virtual machine scheduling. China
Commun 12(2):155–166
Miettinen K (2012) Nonlinear multiobjective optimization, vol 12.
Springer, Berlin
Mishra M, Sahoo A (2011) On theory of vm placement: anomalies in
existing methodologies and their mitigation using a novel vector
123
 Author's personal copy
11296
based approach. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on cloud
computing (CLOUD). IEEE
Sadatsakkak SA, Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA (2015a) Optimization
performance and thermodynamic analysis of an irreversible nano
scale Brayton cycle operating with Maxwell–Boltzmann gas.
Energy Convers Manag 101:592–605
Sadatsakkak SA, Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA (2015b) Thermodynamic
and thermo-economic analysis and optimization of an irre-
versible regenerative closed Brayton cycle. Energy Convers
Manag 94:124–129
Schott JR (1995) Fault tolerant design using single and multicriteria
genetic algorithm optimization. No. AFIT/CI/CIA-95-039. Air
Force Inst of Tech Wright–Patterson AFB OH
Singh A, Korupolu M, Mohapatra D (2008) Server-storage virtual-
ization: integration and load balancing in data centers. In:
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM/IEEE conference on supercom-
puting. IEEE Press
Song W, Xiao Z, Chen Q, Luo H (2014) Adaptive resource
provisioning for the cloud using online bin packing. IEEE Trans
Comput 63(11):2647–2660
Speitkamp B, Bichler M (2010) A mathematical programming
approach for server consolidation problems in virtualized data
centers. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 3(4):266–278
Tang C, Steinder M, Spreitzer M, Pacifici G (2007) A scalable
application placement controller for enterprise data centers. In:
123
A. Gopu, N. Venkataraman
Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide
Web. ACM, New York, pp 331–340
Van Veldhuizen DA (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms:
classifications, analyses, and new innovations. No. AFIT/DS/
ENG/99-01. Air Force Inst of Tech Wright–Patterson AFB OH
School of Engineering
Wang M, Meng X, Zhang L (2011) Consolidating virtual machines
with dynamic bandwidth demand in data centers. In: INFOCOM,
2011 proceedings IEEE. IEEE
Wood T, Shenoy P, Venkataramani A, Yousif M (2009) Sandpiper:
black-box and gray-box resource management for virtual
machines. Comput Netw 53(17):2923–2938
Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary
algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput
11(6):712–731
Zhang L, Zhuang Y, Zhu W (2013) Constraint programming based
virtual cloud resources allocation model. Int J Hybrid Inf
Technol 6(6):333–344
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.