UIC-ATC-ScalCom-CBDCom-IoP 2015
Task scheduling algorithm based on PSO in cloud environment
Anqi Xu, Yang Yang, Zhenqiang Mi
School of Computer and Communication Engineering
University of Science and Technology Beijing
Beijing, China
xuanqi0418@foxmail.com, {yyang, mizq}@ustb.edu.cn
Abstract—In recent years, cloud computing has developed
rapidly under the vigorous promotion of industry and
academia. With the expansion of cloud computing, users’
special needs for cloud resources have gradually improved. As
a business model, cloud computing must pay more attention to
user demands for services and provide users with high-quality
services. As one of the key technologies in cloud computing,
task scheduling is mainly responsible for assigning user tasks
to the appropriate resources. However, the existing scheduling
algorithms do not take full account of users’ different needs. In
this paper, we consider multidimensional QoS requirements,
and introduce Berger model to judge the fairness of the
resource allocation results. We also improve the Particle
Swarm Optimization(PSO) algorithm by adjusting its
parameters dynamically and making the position coding
discrete. Then, we propose a task scheduling algorithm based
on QoS-DPSO. The simulation results show that this algorithm
ˊ
can effectively carry out user tasks and reflect more fairnessˊ
Keywords-cloud computing; task scheduling; Particle Swarm
Optimization(PSO);Berger model
I. INTRODUCTION
Cloud computing is of most concern in today's IT
industry technology. It is the development and extension of
distributed computing, grid computing and parallel
computing. Its application form is the commercial realization
of above technologies, allowing users to access on-demand
computing power, storage capacity and information service.
In a cloud environment, the task number is huge and
resource capability is various, so how to schedule tasks
efficiently has become the focus of cloud computing
research.Currently, research on cloud task scheduling is not
much, which is mainly divided into traditional and intelligent
scheduling algorithm. However, current research in this area
has just started, and there is not a task scheduling algorithm
that can be applied to all areas and get the best scheduling
results at the same time. Each scheduling algorithm has its
own applications and limitations. Therefore, doing some
useful exploration in this area is of practical significance.
Cloud computing is dynamic, distributed, heterogeneous
in general and the resource management strategies of each
organization are different, so the quality of service (QoS)
mechanisms of cloud computing has become the focus of the
978-1-4673-7211-4/15 $31.00 © 2015 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/UIC-ATC-ScalCom-CBDCom-IoP.2015.196
Zenggang Xiong
School of Computer and Information Science
Hubei Engineering University
Xiaogan, Hubei, China
jkxxzg2003@163.com
study gradually. In cloud computing, users have their own
preferences for resources. Some users need real-time
assurance, some need low cost, and the others need strong
stability. Therefore, we need different QoS parameters to
measure users’ satisfaction according to their different needs.
At present, task scheduling algorithm is more concerned
about the efficiency rather than the fairness of resource
allocation, often resulting in the excessive use of resources
with strong computing capability [1].
In this paper, we propose a task scheduling algorithm
based on QoS-DPSO. Our main contributions can be
summarized as follows:
ЬWe consider multidimensional QoS requirements, and
introduce the Berger’ s model to judge the fairness of the
system’s resource allocation results.
Ь We improve the PSO algorithm by adjusting its
parameters dynamically and making the position coding
discrete.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2
presents related work. In section 3, we introduce the problem
and describe our model for cloud task scheduling. In section
4, we introduce standard PSO algorithm. Our task scheduling
algorithm based on QoS-DPSO is presented in section 5.
Section 6 shows the simulation results and performance
analysis. Finally, section 7 gives conclusions and an outlook
on possible continuations of our work.
II. RELATED WORK
Task scheduling of cloud computing refers to dispatch
the computing tasks to different resources according to
certain rules. This is an NP-complete problem in the general
form [2]. So, past work have proposed many heuristics based
approaches to solve this problem.
Since task scheduling is a NP-Complete problem,
Genetic Algorithm (GA) has been used for scheduling jobs
[3]. However, GA may not be the best approach. Salman et
al. [4] have shown that the performance of PSO algorithm is
faster than GA in solving static task assignment problem for
homogeneous distributed computing systems based on their
test cases. Lei et al. [5] have shown that the PSO algorithm is
able to get better schedule than GA based on their simulated
experiments for Grid computing. In addition, the results
presented by Tasgetiren et al. [6] have provided evidence
1055
that PSO algorithm was able to improve 57 out of 90 best
known solutions provided by other well known algorithms to
solve the sequencing problems [7].
In addition, the relation between resource supply and
demand in distributed system is similar to commodity
economy model. The resource provider is equal to the
commodity supplier, and the resource user is equal to the
commodity buyer. The research on how to apply economic
theory to resource distribution can be traced back to an
auction mechanism for resource allocation in the PDP-1
machine, which proposed by Sutherland in 1968 [8]. Most of
the subsequent research focused on solving the load
balancing of distributed system with the aid of price
mechanism [9]. Along with the grid development, the
researchers on how to apply the market mechanism to grid
resources allocation have also carried out in-depth. Among
them, Popcon [10] and the Nimrod/G [11] are more
influential. They all reveal the validity of grid resource
allocation based on economics method. Ref. [12] has
introduced market-oriented cloud. It is one of the first papers
in the area. However, most of these studies did not involve
the fairness of resources allocation under the market
mechanism, until Baomin Xu and et.al [13] proposed for the
first time an algorithm of job scheduling based on Berger
model in cloud environment. The Berger model of
distributive justice is based on expectation states. It is a
series of distribution theories of social wealth.
III. CLOUD ENVIRONMENT TASK SCHEDULING MODEL
A. Description of the problem
There are two levels of task scheduling in cloud
environment. One is the scheduling from tasks to the virtual
machines, and the other is from virtual machines to physical
hosts. Cloud task scheduling model is shown in Figure 1. In
this paper, we study the task scheduling algorithm from
tasks to virtual resources.
7DVN/LVW 9LUWXDO
8VHU/LVW 7
0DFKLQH
90
8VHU
7 90
8VHU 7 90
7 90
7 90
90
8VHU1
7Q 90Q
'DWD&HQWHU
906FKHGXOHU 903URYLGLRQHU
%URNHU
&,6
Figure 1. Task scheduling model of cloud computing
Currently, Map / Reduce programming mode proposed
by Google is used in cloud computing generally. By Map
and Reduce stages, we can split a large task into many
smaller sub-tasks, and then assign them to several virtual
resource nodes for parallel execution. This paper considers
only the case of independent subtasks. Then, cloud task
scheduling problem can be simplified as follows: in a cloud
environment, there are n independent sub-tasks to be
allocated to m virtual resources for execution (m <n), and
each independent task can be only assigned to a virtual
resource, solving an optimal scheduling policy.
B. Resource model
Characteristics of virtual machine comprise CPU,
memory, performance, bandwidth, priority, failure rate and
cost. This paper selects the CPU number, performance,
bandwidth and cost as virtual resource parameters.
Suppose that VM  {VM1 ,VM 2 ,,VM m } represents the
set of virtual machines in cloud data center, and m represents
the total number of virtual machine. We use a five-tuple to
represent the virtual machine parameters, namely
VM i  {VM ID ,VM pesNumber ,VM mips ,VM bw ,VM price } .Where VM ID r
epresents the virtual machine ID. VM pesNumber represents the
CPU number. VM mips represents the CPU performance,
referring to the accomplish amount per unit time to represent.
VM bw represents the virtual machine bandwidth.
VM price represents the cost of the virtual machine to run tasks
per unit time.
C. Task model
In this paper, we classify the tasks according to their
different Qos requirements and consider the following
parameters.
(1)Execution time. For users with real-time requirements,
their tasks need to be implemented within the least possible
time.
(2)Bandwidth. When users require a higher
'DWD&HQWHU
communication bandwidth, such as multimedia streaming
+RVW
needs, bandwidth requirements should be given priority.
(3)Cost. Cost is an important factor of users’ attention.
For users who want low-price service, cost is a measure
+RVW standard.
For different user need, we need to establish different
+RVW evaluation criteria to measure their satisfaction.
Suppose that T  {T1 , T2 ,, Tn } represents the set of
independent tasks, and n represents the total number of tasks.
We use a four-tuple to represent the task parameters, namely
Ti  {TID , Tclasstype , Tlength , Texp t } .
Where TID represents the task ID. Tclasstype represents the
task category. According to the QoS classification, Tclasstype is
set to: When classtype = 1, it represents the task preferring
execution time. When classtype = 2, it represents the task
1056
preferring bandwidth. When classtype = 3, it represents the both show unfairness. In cloud environment, it can provide
task preferring running cost. Tlength represents the task length, better quality of service when the actual resource allocation
referring to the computation amount required by the task. is higher than the expected resource allocation, so too much
injustice is allowed. This function is used to judge the
Texpt represents the task expectation. According to the QoS
fairness of the resource allocation results. Based on QoS
classification, Texpt is set to: When classtype =1, it represents classification, we describe the fairness evaluation function
expected execution time. When classtype =2, it represents of each type of task as follows:
expected bandwidth. When classtype =3, it represents a) Execution time expectation
expected running cost. J i   ln(tVM / texp t ) 

D. Scheduling target Where texpt indicates the expected execution time of
1) Fairness evaluation function in Berger model users, which is set by users according to their expectation.
In Berger model, the justice of distribution can be tVM shows the actual execution time, which is calculated as:
judged through comparison between local structure and
Tlength
reference structure. Moreover, it is worth to mention that the tVM 
definition of distributive justice evaluation function in VM mips  VM pesNumber

Berger model. I.e., the execution time of subtask is equal to the ratio of
JEF   ln( AR / JR)  its computation amount and the operation speed of the
Where  denotes constant. AR(Actual Reward)represents virtual machine assigned to it.
the actual distribution, namely social distribution that actors b) Bandwidth expectation
actually obtained. JR(Just Reward)represents justice J i   ln(bwVM / bwexp t ) 
distribution, namely expected distribution generated by
actors. The intuitive meaning of this function is that when Where bwexpt represents the expected bandwidth of users.
the actual and expected distribution of actors are equal, bwVM indicates the task actual allocated bandwidth, which is
namely, when the function value is 0, fairness set up. When
equal to the bandwidth of the virtual machine assigned to it.
the function value is greater than 0, namely, when the actual
distribution is greater than the expected distribution, the c) Cost expectation
result is excessive distribution , i.e., nonjustice. When the J i   ln(cos tVM / cos texp t ) 
function value is less than 0, namely, when the actual Where cos texp t indicates the task expected running cost.
distribution is less than the expected distribution, the result
is too little distribution , i.e., nonjustice. cos tVM indicates the task actual running cost, which is
2) Fairness evaluation function based on QoS calculated as:
In cloud computing, the fairness of resource uses Tlength
reflected in those areas: cloud can provide reasonable cos tVM   VM price
VM mips VM pesNumber
available resource for user tasks according to the 
characteristics and the preferences of user tasks. It also I.e., the task running cost is equal to the product of its
enables different users to get what they want in satisfactory. execution time and the virtual machine’s cost per unit of
Next, we will define the function of task justice and time.
system justice under the cloud environment. Definition2. System Justice( J ). Suppose that
Definition1. Task Justice( J i ). A task receives a fair T  {T1 , T2 ,, Tn } represents the set of system tasks, and
execution, when the actual allocation resources for it are J  {J1 , J 2 ,, J n } shows the set of the corresponding
close to the expected resources, to the maximum extent. Set fairness evaluation function, then the fairness evaluation
the fairness evaluation function of task Ti as: function of the system is defined as:
n
J i   ln( ARi / ERi )   J  | Ji |

Where  is the balancing constant, and 
(0,1] . ARi is
i 1

Visibly, the system fairness constraint can be realized by

the amount of resources which task Ti obtains actually. the following formula:
n
ERi is the amount of resources which task Ti expected. When
min J  min  | J i |
ARi
equates ERi , the function value is 0, namely, fairness
i 1 
When J obtains the minimum value, system users
J 0
set up; when i , task Ti receives too much allocation, achieve their fairness to the maximum extent, and the
saying too much injustice; when J i  0 , task Ti receives too fairness of the entire system is best. This parameter can be
little assignment, saying too little injustice. The latter two used to optimize the overall fairness of the system.

1057
 IV. STANDARD PSO INTRODUCTION
Particle swarm optimization is a bionic intelligent
optimization algorithm that mimics the behavior of animal
swarm. It is proposed by the American psychologist
Kennedy and electrical engineer Eberhart in 1995. PSO is a
stochastic optimization algorithm based on swarm
intelligence, using the information sharing mechanism of
bird group individual to obtain the optimal solution. PSO
algorithm can remember personal best information and
global best information through collaboration between
individuals. Each particle in the population represents a
possible solution of the problem to be optimized[14].
Set a swarm which is composed of m particles in a D-
dimensional search space. The position of particle i is
xi  {xi1 , xi 2 ,, xiD } , and its velocity is vi  {vi1 , vi 2 ,, viD } .
Each particle’s best position is pi  { pi1 , pi 2 ,, piD } , and the
best position of all particles is pg  ( pg1 , pg 2 ,, pgD ) . For
the particle i in the k-th iteration, its d-dimensional
velocity vidk 1 and position xidk 1 is updated by the following
equation:
vidk 1  vidk  c1r1 ( pidk  xidk )  c2 r2 ( pgd
k
 xidk )
k 1 k 1
x id  x vk
id id 
Where  is the inertia weight, using to balance the
exploration and development capabilities of PSO. Larger 
makes the particle have a better exploration ability, and
smaller  makes the particle have a better development
ability. c1 and c2 are the learning factors, denoting the
degree close to the particle’s best position and the group’s
r r
best position respectively. 1 and 2 are the random numbers
between 0 and 1. To avoid particles leaving the search space
vij
in the iterative process, is usually defined within a certain
range, i.e. vij
 vmax , vmax  . If the problem’s search space
range is   xmax , xmax  , we
[0.5N ,0.5N ] .
set vmax  k  xmax , 0.1  k  1.
V. CLOUD TASK SCHEDULING ALGORITHM BASED ON
QOS-DPSO
Currently, studies on discrete particle swarm algorithm
are still very limited. When it comes to addition and
multiplication of discrete variables, we need specialized
flexible definition or legalization processing. Therefore, PSO
needs necessary improvement when it is applied to discrete
cloud task scheduling.
A. Particle coding
[min , max ] ,
For the task scheduling problem with n tasks and m
resources (n> m) in cloud environment, we use resource -
task indirect encoding. We encode every sub-task’s occupied
resource according to its order. The coding length depends
on the number of sub-tasks, and a particle corresponds to a
task scheduling strategy in fact.
Suppose that n = 10, m = 3,then the particle
(3,1,2,3,3,1,2,2,1,3) could be a feasible scheduling strategy.
The particle encoding is shown in Table 1, where the task-
resource pair (1,2) represents the sub-task 1 is assigned to the
resource 2 for execution.
TABLE I. PARTICLE CODING EXAMPLE
Subtask Number Virtual Machine Number
1 3
2 1
3 2
4 3
5 3
6 1
7 2
8 2
9 1
10 3
We obtain the resource’s subtasks distribution by
decoding the particle. The particle decoding example is
shown in Table 2, where the subtasks performed by resource
1 are {3,8,10}. Subtasks performed by resource 2
 are{1,4,7,9}. Subtasks performed by resource 3 are {2,5,6}.
TABLE II. PARTICLES DECODING EXAMPLE
Virtual Machine Number Subtask Number
1 2,6,9
2 3,7,
3 1,4,5,10
B. Population initialization
We set the population size is NP, subtask number is M,
resource number is N. Then the random initialization can be
described as: System randomly generates NP individuals of
length M to represent the initial positions of particles, and
each individual’s every value comes from the set {1,2, ..., N}
randomly. Set k = 0.5, vmax  0.5N , then the initial velocities
can
are NP vectors of length M generated by system randomly,
and each bit value range of the vector is vij
C. Fitness function
In this paper, we set the system fairness as the goal of
task scheduling, so the fitness function is defined as equation
(8).When the fitness function value is smaller, the fairness of
the system’s resource allocation result is better.
D. Inertia weight adjustment
To balance the exploration and development capabilities
of particles, we need to adjust  dynamically. In this paper,
we adopt the linear decreasing changing mode: Set the
maximum iteration number is I max , and 
then the inertia weight i in the i-th iteration is[15]:
1058
 max  min
i  max  i Initialization
I max parameters
 
E. Updating and legalization processing of vector and Random initial
position population
The vector is updated according to equation . The
position is updated as follows: Firstly, by formula, we Calculate the fitness value
obtain a new coding sequence containing illegal coding.
Then, we make the illegal coding legalized. The main
processing methods include taking absolute value, taking Determine Pi and Pg
integer upwardly, taking remainder, etc.. Specific methods
are described as follows :
k=k+1 Update the velocity and
 xidk 1 
 xidk 1
(0, N ] position
xidk 1 = 1 xidk 1  0 

mod(  xidk 1  , N ) x k 1
id ! (0, N ]
No Whether the
maximum
Where,  xidk 1  represents taking the absolute value of
 Iterations
illegal coding and taking the integer upwardly then. Yes
mod(  xidk 1  , N ) represents  x k 1  -to-N modulo operation. By
  id Output for optimal
this legalization processing method, we can obtain legal and results
valid position vectors.
F. QoS-DPSO algorithm flow
Figure 2. QoS-PSO algorithm flowchart
Specific steps of QoS-DPSO algorithm are described as
follows:
Step1 Initialize parameters: Set the iteration’s maximum VI. SIMULATION AND EVALUATION
number I max , the population size NP, inertia weight
In this paper, we use the platform CloudSim for
range min , max  , learning factor c1 , c2 and other simulation. In order to achieve our own task scheduling
parameters. policy, we need to extend DatacenterBroker class in
Step2 Initialize population randomly: Set the initial Cloudsim platform, and overload its bindCloudletTbVM ()
positions and velocities of the population randomly. method[16].
Step3 Calculate the fitness value of all the particles A. Simulation environment and parameter settings
according to equation (8).
Step4 For each particle xi , we compare the fitness 1) Parameter settings of PSO algorithm
Parameters of PSO algorithm is set as follows:
function value of it and its best position pi ever experienced.
If the value of xi is smaller, xi will be recorded as the best TABLE III. ALGORITHM’S MAIN PARAMETERS

position pi for the particle. Variable Name Variable Value Or Range

Population size(NP) 20
Step5 For each particle xi , we compare the fitness Virtual machine number (M) 4
function value of it and global best position pg . If the value Task number (N) 12
Inertia weight range  ,   [0.4,0.9]
min max
of xi is smaller, xi will be recorded as the current global best
Learning factor c1 2
position pg . Learning factor c2 2
Maximum number of iteration(Imax) 100
Step6 For each particle, update its velocity according to
equation (10), and update its position according to formula 2) Parameter settings of virtual machine
(11) and (13). Create a set of virtual machines with different
Step7 Judge whether the iteration number reaches the performances:
maximum value. If not, return to Step3 for the next iteration. VM i  {VM ID ,VM pesNumber ,VM mips ,VM bw ,VM price } .Virtual
Otherwise, output the optimal result, and end the algorithm. machine number is four and the parameter settings are shown
Specifically, algorithm flow chart is in Fig. 2 . in the following table:

1059
 TABLE IV. VIRTUAL MACHINE PARAMETERS The comparison of the task J value is shown in Figure 4 .
Variable Name Variable Value Or Range The smaller the absolute value is, the better fairness the task
Virtual machine ID {0,1,2,3} receives. Obviously, the resource allocation of QoS-DPSO
CPU number (pesNumber) {3,2,2,1} g
algorithm p
can meet the user’s expectations better.
Computing speed(mips) {300,400,200,350}
Bandwidth(bw) {1200,2000,1000,1500}
Cost per unit of time(price) {2,1.8,1.5,1.1}

3) Parameter settings of task

Create a set of tasks with different preferences:
Ti  {TID , Tclasstype , Tlength , Texp t } . Task number is twelve and the
parameter settings are shown in the following table:

TABLE V. TASK PARAMETERS

CloudId Classtype Length Range Expectation Range Figure 4. User satisfaction
0 1 [6000, 12000] [5, 20]
1 1 [6000, 12000] [5, 20] The comparison of the system J value is shown in Figure
2 1 [6000, 12000] [5, 20] 5. The smaller J value is, the better fairness the system
3 1 [6000, 12000] [5, 20] receives. Obviously, QoS-DPSO algorithm can achieve
4 2 [6000, 12000] [1000, 2000] better resource allocation fairness of the system.
5 2 [6000, 12000] [1000, 2000]
6 2 [6000, 12000] [1000, 2000]
7 2 [6000, 12000] [1000, 2000]
8 3 [6000, 12000] [15, 25]
9 3 [6000, 12000] [15, 25]
10 3 [6000, 12000] [15, 25]
11 3 [6000, 12000] [15, 25]
Where task 0 ~ 3 are the first type of tasks, whose user
expectation is for the execution time, and the expectation
value is generated between 5s to 20s randomly. Task 4 to 7
are the second type of tasks, whose user expectation is for Figure 5. System fairness evaluation
the bandwidth, and the expectation value is generated
between 1000bps to 2000bps randomly. Task 8 ~ 11 are the Task 0 ~ 3 are the first type of tasks, preferring short
third type of tasks, whose user expectation is for the running execution time. The comparison of the first type task’s
cost, and the expectation value is generated between execution time is shown in Figure 6. We see that the
15dollars to 25dollars randomly. allocation results of QoS-DPSO algorithm make task 0 ~ 3
obtain better computing power and shorter execution time in
B. Experimental results and performance analysis general, so it can better meet the user preference.
Experiment 1: Task scheduling algorithm based on the
minimum completion time, which can be implemented using
Cloudsim existing scheduling policy.
Experiment 2: Task scheduling algorithm based on
QoS-DPSO. The value of balancing constant  is set 1.
Through the comparison of task execution time shown in
Figure 3, we see that the efficiency of QoS-DPSO algorithm
is slightly worse than the minimum completion time
algorithm in general. But for the task 0 ~ 3 which preferring
high computing power, their execution time is less than the
Figure 6. Experimental comparison of the first type of task
minimum completion time algorithm.
Task 4 ~ 7 are the second type of tasks, preferring high
bandwidth. The comparison of the second type task’s actual
allocated bandwidth is shown in Figure 7. We see that the
allocation results of QoS-DPSO algorithm can better meet
the user preference and the system’s fairness.

Figure 3. Task execution time

1060

Figure 7. Experimental comparison of the second type of task
Task 8 ~ 11 are the third type of tasks, preferring less
running cost. The comparison of the third type task’s
running cost is shown in Figure 8. We see that the allocation
results of QoS-DPSO algorithm can better meet the user
preference and the system’s fairness.
Figure 8. Experimental comparison of the third type of task
Overall, by comparing the two algorithms’ simulation
results, we see that the algorithm proposed in this paper can
perform user tasks effectively and show better fairness.
VII. SUMMARY
In this paper, for the cloud task scheduling problem, we
consider multidimensional QoS requirements, and introduce
Berger model to judge the fairness of the system resource
allocation results. We also improve PSO by adjusting the
inertia weight and making the position coding discrete.
Finally, we propose a task scheduling algorithm based on
QoS-DPSO. The results of the simulation indicate that our
algorithm can effectively solve the problem of task
scheduling in cloud environment and improve the fairness of
the system allocation results.
In the current approach, response time and transmission
costs are not considered. In our future work, we would like
to improve the parameters of PSO such as the learning factor,
and consider more scheduling targets such as reliability and
load balancing to improve the performance of the algorithm.
This will make our approach more practical and effective.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the National Science
Foundation of China [Grant No. 61272432, 61370092 and
61472033], Hubei Provincial Department of Education
Outstanding Youth Scientific Innovation Team Support
Foundation (T201410) and Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities [TW201502].
1061
REFERENCES
[1] M.A. Arfeen, K. Pawlikowski, A. Willig. A Framework for Resource
Allocation Strategies in Cloud Computing Environment. Computer
Software and Applications Conference Workshops ( COMPSACW ) ,
IEEE 35th Annual, 2011, pp. 261 -266.
[2] J. D. Ullman. Np-complete scheduling problems. J. Comput.Syst. Sci.,
10(3), 1975.
[3] J. Yu, R. Buyya, and K. Ramamohanarao. Workflow Scheduling
Algorithms for Grid Computing, volume 146, Springer Heidelberg,
2008, pp. 173–214.
[4] A. Salman. Particle swarm optimization for task assignment problem.
Microprocessors and Microsystems, 26(8):363– 371, November 2002.
[5] L. Zhang, Y. Chen, R. Sun, S. Jing, and B. Yang. A task scheduling
algorithm based on pso for grid computing. International Journal of
Computational Intelligence Research, 4(1), 2008.
[6] M. F. Tasgetiren, Y.-C. Liang, M. Sevkli, and G. Gencyilmaz. A
particle swarm optimization algorithm for makespan and total
flowtime minimization in the permutation flowshop sequencing
problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3):1930–
1947, March 2007.
[7] Umale J S, Chaudhari M P A. Survey on Job Scheduling Algorithms
of Cloud Computing[J], 2014.
[8] Sutherland IE. A futures market in computer time. Commun ACM
1968, 11(6):449–51.
[9] Ferguson D, Yemini Y, Nikolaou C. Microeconomic algorithms for
load balancing in distributed computer systems. In: Proceedings of
the eighth international conference on distributed systems. San Jose:
IEEE Press, 1988. p. 491–9.
[10] Regev O, Nisan N. The popcorn market – An online market for
computational resources. In: Proceedings of the first international
conference on information and computation economies. Charleston:
ACM Press, 1998.
[11] Buyya R. Economic-Based distributed resource management and
scheduling for grid computing, Ph.D. Thesis. Melbourne: Monash
University, 2002.
[12] Rajkumar Buyya, Chee Shin Yeo, Srikumar Venugopal. Market-
oriented cloud computing: vision, hype, and reality for delivering IT
services as computing utilities. In: Proceedings of the tenth IEEE
international conference on high performance computing and
communications (HPCC 2008), Dalian, China. Los Alamitos, CA,
USA: IEEE CS Press, September 25–27, 2008.
[13] Baomin Xu, Chunyan Zhao, Enzhao Hu, Bin Hu, Job scheduling
algorithm based on Berger model in cloud environment, Advances in
Engineering Software 42, PP. 419–425,2011.
[14] D. Bratton, Kennedy J.Defining a standard for particle swarm
optimization//Proceedings of the IEEE Swarm Intelligence
Symposium, Honolulu, HI, 2007, pp. 120-127.
[15] A. Ratnaweera 㸪 S.K. Halgamuge 㸪 H.C. Watson. Self-organizing
hierarchical particle swarm optimizer with time-varying acceleration
coefficients[J]. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on,
2004, 8(3): 240-255.
[16] R.N. Calheiros, R. Ranjan, A. Beloglazov, et al. CloudSim: a toolkit
for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and
evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms[J]. Software: Practice
and Experience, 2011, 41(1): 23-50.