IEEE CONECCT2014 1569822161
An Econometric based Model for Re source S carcity
Problem in Cloud Computing
Gaurav B aranwal
School of Computer and Systems Sciences
lawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, India
gaurav l l_scs@jnu.ac.in
Abstract-Resource provIsioning in Cloud computing is an
important problem as the resources are scarce. Better utilization
of the existing unutilized resources may solve the future resource
scarcity problem. To decide, how much percentage of unutilized
allocated resources the Cloud manager can take back to solve the
problem of scarcity of resource in future, an econometric model
of distributive j ustice is identified and mapped to resource
redistribution in Cloud computing. The proposed model uses a
Probit model to get the value of coefficient which helps to
determine the percentage of unutilized allocated resources to be
taken back. Data is increasing at the enormous rate warranting
mass storage. Thus, Cloud storage has been considered an
important scarce resource. The proposed model focuses on the
Cloud storage as a resource. It is assumed that service provider
must reserve certain amount of resource to accept sharply
increased resource request. The proposed model also identifies
this constraint and proposes a model of distributive j ustice that
addresses this. Experimental results reveal the efficacy of the
proposed model.
Keywords-Cloud, econometric model, probit model, Cloud
storage.
I. INTRODUCTION
Most of the internet connected devices use the Cloud
technology knowingly or unknowingly now days. Cloud
computing provides a platform for using computing resources
like CPU, bandwidth, memory etc. via internet without owning
these resources on a pay per-use basis. Thus, there is no need to
buy the required computing resources to run any application.
Imperative is to rent the computing resources that too only for
the time period in which the resources are needed. Cloud
resources are offered in form of a service on a payment basis.
Many services of Yahoo, Microsoft and Google etc. have been
designed to act as Cloud from time to time. Cloud users feel of
infmite resources in the Cloud, which is just an illusion. As
both the number of users and data are increasing at the rapid
pace, scarcity of resources is bound to happen in future due to
limited resources. Service provider' s reputation may be
affected in the Cloud service market, if the provider declines a
request due to limitation of resources. How to schedule these
scarce resources amongst the growing number of Cloud users
are an important and a big challenge for the Cloud service
providers. In order to satisfy the requests, provider may opt for
Cloud federation i.e. renting resources from some other
providers [ 1 ] . Provider may have to periodically rent the
resources as and when the resources fall short of.
Deo Prakash Vidyarthi
School of Computer and Systems Sciences
lawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi, India
dpv@mail.jnu.ac.in
There might be another possibility that users are not able to
fully utilize the resources allocated to them. If provider is able
to know the percentage of underutilized resources, provider
may use the concept of redistribution implying the concept of
distributive justice in order to satisfy its customer and to keep
its reputation intact. Provider may take some part (portion) of
unutilized resources back from the users and allocate them to
the requesting client. Suppose a provider does not have enough
resources to accept a request, provider does a survey of its
clients to identify those clients that are utilizing the allocated
resources below a defined threshold. Provider may give some
lucrative offer to such clients in terms of cost slashing etc. if
they agree to leave some of their resources. That allows the
provider in getting some resources back to be allocated to the
requesting clients. In Cloud computing, resource reservation
and on-demand plans are two provisioning plan which are
offered by Cloud providers for computing resources [2] .
Reservation plan is a static Cloud resource provisioning policy.
In this plan, user rent computing resources for a long time and
providers charge price one time (e.g. one year). Quick scale up
or quick scale down is not possible in this plan. In on-demand
plan, providers charge by pay-per-use basis (e.g. 1 day).
Therefore, with on-demand plan, when consumers need
resources for the fluctuated and unpredictable demands,
consumers can dynamically provision resources. If provider
gets some resources from reservation-plan-users and allocates
these resources to the on-demand-plan-requesting clients, it
will increase the provider' s profit and will meet the users
demand also. It is to note that with the on-demand plan, the
price for resources is costlier than that of the reservation plan
[2] .
This paper has identified the problem of resource scarcity
and proposed a model to solve this problem based on
econometric model. Considering the importance of the Data
centre management, Cloud storage has been considered an
important and scarce resource and the proposed model focuses
on the Cloud storage as a resource.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II mentions the
related work. Section III highlights the motivation behind this
work. Section IV details the proposed model based which is
based on Econometric model. Section V mentions the
experimental evaluation of the proposed model by inferring the
results obtained. Section VI concludes the work.
 II. RELATED WORK
The demand-&-supply model of resources in distributed
system is analogous to demand-&-supply model of commodity
in economics. Resources provider in former is same as the
commodity supplier that supplies variety of resources such as
CPU, memory, disks etc. for its consumer. Consumers, of
aforementioned resources, in distributed system resemble the
commodity buyers in economics. Consumers have to pay a fee
to acquire resources in order to meet its demand of resources
[3 ] . Some resource allocation strategy, based on economics
model, has been proposed in the literatures that are listed as
follows.
To investigate the effectiveness of resource allocation
strategy based on the economics model for the benefits to the
providers, consumers and society, a grid economy is simulated
in [4] , in which providers and consumers pursue their own
interests and resulting effects on system welfare is measured. It
is found that economics based strategies fares well. Since in a
grid system number of consumers, their resource demand and
resource supply can be highly dynamic, a model is suggested in
[5] that consider an environment in which both providers and
consumers act as selfish agents. A distributed negotiation
mechanism is introduced where agents negotiate for both
contract price and de-commitment penalty, allowing de­
commitment from contracts at some cost. The work in [6] also
considers problem of dynamic changes in the resource
availability over time. A market-based model for allocation and
pricing mechanism of resources is employed. Service consumer
and provider agents place their bid and ask prices using k­
pricing (introduced in Schnizler et al. (2008) [7] for double­
sided combinatorial auctions) which sets the transaction price
individually for each matched buyer-service provider pair.
These mechanisms are adaptive enough to meet the
customers/service provider' s requirement and constraints set by
the bundled services. An algorithm for j ob scheduling based on
Berger model is proposed in [3 ] . Expectation state is the base
for Berger model of distributive justice. It is assumed that users
are able to judge that whether assignment of resources is fair or
not by the distribution relations comparison between itself and
other ordinary person in referential structure. In the j ob
scheduling process, dual fairness constraints is established by
the algorithm. A combinatorial auction-based allocation
method to solve virtual machine allocation problem in Cloud is
proposed in [8] . The proposed methods are CA-LP and CA­
GREEDY, the two extensions of two existing combinatorial
auction mechanism. Experiments reveal that the allocation
efficiency can be significantly improved by combinatorial
auction-based mechanisms while generating higher revenue for
the Cloud providers.
Application of different economic based resource allocation
schemes for ensuring even distribution of (computing)
resources in grid computing, distributed computing, and Cloud
computing have been well pursued in different scenario. So, it
can be observed that economics-based resource allocation
schemes may be beneficial for provider and customer in a
Cloud environment.
In the proposed work, economics based method
'redistribution of wealth' to establish a just society is used. By
2
using redistribution technique, proposed model gets some
percentage of unused allocated resources back and then Cloud
provider may assign these resources to the new users.
III. MOTIVATION
Many countries devote large budget for redistribution of
income though governmental redistribution is costly. There
should be some knowledge about how much resources society
is ready to pay for distributive justice. Giacmo Corneo and
Christina M. Fong in [9], proposed an econometric model
which helps to estimate the willingness of individual to pay for
distributive justice. There may be different attitude for
redistribution within groups of individual with similar market
income. This work [9] assumes that people give preference to
equity, i.e. for living in a society where "one gets what one
deserves, and deserves what one gets". Measures of
individual' s support or individual' s opposition for
redistribution, fairness of market outcomes, and pre-fiscal
incomes are only required for estimation of this model. It
derives a formula
that defines maximum amount an individual is willing to
pay for distributive justice from the fiscal data and estimated
scalars, W denotes the willingness to pay for justice, C is
coefficients of a Probit model, where a and f3 are non-negative
consumption of a numeraire good.
IV. THE PROPSED MODEL
Fig. 1 suggests a one-to-one mapping of econometric model
to resource redistribution in Cloud computing.
I Numcra i rc good IE )1 R esou rce in cloud I
Social d i strihution Resource a l l ocat ion
Just distribution of i ncome J ust d istribution of re sources
User's ut i l i ty i n cl oud
Figure 1 : Mapping between Cloud and econometric model for distributive
justice
A broad vision about the structure of a future market-based
Cloud [ 1 0] has been given in fig. 2. It shows a market-based
architecture which consists of provider' s coordinator service
and consumer' s brokering service supporting utility-driven
internetworking of Clouds. Job of Cloud broker is to identify
suitable Cloud service providers through the Cloud exchange.
Cloud exchange acts as a market maker bringing together
service providers, customers, and coordinator component.
Cloud coordinator runs at each data centre which keeps track of
load on data centre and negotiates with other Cloud providers
for exporting Cloud services across multiple data centre to
handle the peak in demands. It also monitors the application
execution and oversees that agreed SLAs are delivered [ 1 1 ] .
 user according to provider, and the redistribution Re of
unutilized resource. Let fairness f be 1 if ratio of unutilized
resource to total allocated resource to a particular user is less
than a threshold t and 0 otherwise, where 0 < t S; 1 . For
example, assume that a user has 1 00 units of resources, 40
units of unutilized resources and t = 0. 3 . Here, ratio (40/1 00)
is greater than t and according to provider, allocation of
resources to this user is unfair; i.e. f = O .
Similarly, let Re b e 1 i f the provider redistributes unutilized
resource and 0 otherwise. It is asswned that justice can be done
if either allocation of resources is fair and provider does not

redistributes unutilized resource as shown in table l .

redistribute or allocation of resource is unfair and provider
Figure 2: Market-based Cloud architecture
TABLE I : RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAIRNES S , REDISTRIBUTION AND
In the proposed work, it is asswned that coordinator will act PERCEPTION OF JUST DISTRIBUTION
as a Cloud storage manager on behalf of the provider. In case
f (fairness) Re (redistribution) J (just distribution)
of scarcity of resources, coordinator gives an offer to clients
that if they are willing to leave some of their unutilized 0 0 -I
resources. If yes, costs currently being paid will be slashed. 0 1 I
This way, coordinator will get some resources back and
allocate those resources to the requesting clients. I 0 I
1 1 -1
A. Resource Provisioning Model
Cloud users derive utility from the unutilized resource, R ,
and from the perception o f a just distribution o f resource, } . As indicated from the table, } = 1 � f =1= Re and} = -1 �
} = 1 if individual thinks that there i s just allocation of f = Re.
resources in Cloud and - 1 otherwise i.e. when individual
thinks that the allocation is unjust. It is assumed that there is no From the above relationships, utility can b e expressed a s a
partial just or partial unjust. Keeping other factors of utility function of f and Re as follows :
constant, it is assumed that unjust distribution of resources

URe = alogRRe + {J C 1 - 2 f)
Utility with redistribution
decreases a user's utility. Here, it is assumed that utility (U) is

U = alogR + {J} .
cardinally measurable and unit comparable and takes the form (6)

(1) under Re = 1, where RRe denote unutilized allocated resource

with redistribution and as
Where a and {J are non-negative scalars. I f a user thinks that
there is injustice i.e. } = - 1 , utility can be written as

UN = alogRN + {J (2f - 1)
Utility without redistribution
U = alogR - {J (2) (7)

and cloud will be a just cloud. Let W denote the willingness to

Now, if user sacrifices some resources, utility will not change
leave unutilized resources for justice, i.e. the maximal
unutilized resource a user is willing to sacrifice in order to
establish a just Cloud i.e. } = 1 . Utility equation can now be
under Re = 0, where RN denotes unutilized allocated resource
without redistribution. One can easily check equivalence of
above discussed definition of justice with ( 1 ) . For example,
suppose f = O . If there is no redistribution of resources,
Re = O ; then, j = - l . Since U = UN , ifRe = O , we obtain

U = a 1 0 g (R - W) + {J
written as {J} = -{J . The three remaining cases including first one are
(3) checked in table 2

Since utility is constant (i.e. does not change), from above two TABLE 2: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAIRNES S , REDISTRIBUTION, PERCEPTION

a logCR - W) + {J
equations (2) and (3 ) we obtain, OF JUST DISTRIBUTION AND UTILITY

= alogR - {J (4) f Re (redistribution) J (just distribution) U �J

(fairness) (utility)

UN -fJ
Solving the equation (4), we get

W = 1 - exp
0 0 -I

[ (-�P) ] R (5) 0 I I URe fJ

I 0 I UN fJ
Hence, each user is willing to sacrifice a maximal fraction
1- exp (-�P) of its unutilized resources to obtain justice. 1 1 -I URe -fJ

Two factors, responsible for lack or existence of

distributive justice, are the fairness f of resource allocation to a

3
In this theoretical model, it is assumed that if redistribution of
unutilized resource provides higher utility to the users then
only they support redistribution.
Now for mathematical framework, it can be expressed in terms
URe = alogRRe + f3 ( 1 - 2f) + X'YRe + ERe
of a random utility model. Let utility with redistribution is
(8)
UN = alogRN + f3 (2f - 1) + X'YN + EN
and utility without redistribution is
(9)
where x is a vector of observable characteristics of storage and
the fust element of x is normalized to 1 . ERe and EN are error
terms.
It has already been discussed that users support redistribution
when they get higher utility. In probabilistic form it can be
written as
( 1 0)
Where, d is a dummy variable which equals 1 if
redistribution of resources is supported by user and 0
otherwise.
Let R u denote the user's unutilized resources. In the
absence of redistribution, RN = R u . In the presence of
redistribution, unutilized resource depends on the functional
form of the redistributive scheme. In this work, we consider the
model of governmental redistribution with constant
progressivity discussed in [9] . It is because, in constant
progressivity, user with more unutilized resource can return
higher percentage of the unutilized resource than those with
less unutilized resource.
The considered redistributive scheme is as below,
RRe = sR� (1 1)
and R N = R u , a s before. The parameter r i s the residual
progression coefficient:
dlogRRe
r= ---
dlogRN
Here r > 0 and governmental redistribution of income
more progressive for smaller value of r.
Inserting the value of RN and RRe ' from ( 1 1 ) in (8) and (9), and
r r
P [ d = 1 I R u, [, x] = P [ a log(s) + (r - l) a 10g(R u) +
substituting the resulting equations into ( 1 0), one obtains
f3 (2 - 4f) + x ' y + E > 0 I R u, [, x] ( 1 2)
Above equation can be estimated as a binary probit model. Let
Sf (JBf and A R u (JAR u be the estimates of the coefficients
= =
on f and 10g (R u ) , respectively, where Bf and AR u denote
probit estimates and (J denotes the variance of the error term of
the probit equation.
Hence,
a (r - 1) = (JAR u
and
Therefore,
2f3 ( 1 - r ) Bf
a 2 AR u
((r -l)Bt)
Inserting above expressions into (2) gives
� - exp
j =
R = 1 2AR u
(13)
This gives the quantified value o f distributive justice with
constant progressivity policy of redistribution.
B. Algorithm Description
It is necessary that coordinator must reserve certain amount
of storage (e.g. 20% of total storage) in its Cloud storage to
accept sharply increased storage request instantly without
waiting reclamation. Let us assume that reserved storage is T l
and a new threshold i s T2 where T2 > T l . W e assume that
whenever provider will have reserved storage less than T l e.g.
T l - x, coordinator will rent x from other providers and will
add this rented x to its reserved storage. If Provider' s
Unallocated Storage (PUAS) i s less than T2, coordinator will
use the proposed model to get some unused resources back
before going for allocation of reserved storage. Algorithm for
the above discussed logic is given in fig. 3 .
input: Request for storage (m) by end user
Output: Allocation of memory space
Step 1 : Cloud coordinator receives the request.
Step 2: Cloud coordinator allocates the memory space (m) to user.
Step 3: If (PUAS<T l )
Cloud coordinator rent allocated storage (m) from other provider,
Add m to its unallocated space, i.e.
PUAS = PUAS + m.
Step 4: Tf (PUAS<T2)
Cloud coordinator uses proposed model,
Collects unused allocated storage (m') from users,
Add m' to its unallocated storage, i.e.
PUAS = PUAS + m' .
Step 5 : Stop
Figure 3 : Resource Provisioning Algorithm
=
=
Suppose provider has 1 00 units of storage and Tl 20 and
=
T2 30 and at any instance provider has 28 unit unallocated
IS
storage (PUAS 28), coordinator will go with the proposed
model to get some unused allocated storage back. If at any
instance provider has 1 5 units of unallocated storage, which is
less than Tl and as well as T2, coordinator will go with the
proposed model as well as for Cloud federation.
V. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
is must to have probit estimates ( Bf and AR u are probit
To solve the resource scarcity problem using this model, it
estimates, as discussed in section IVA) to decide that how
much unused allocated resources Cloud coordinator may take
back. To get the value of the estimates, it is necessary to have
data set containing unused allocated memory of user, whether
user is ready to leave some unused allocated memory or not,
fairness of allocation of resources to the user and
characteristics of storage (e.g. type of Cloud storage network)
used by individual user. It is assumed that provider has well
informed its customer about redistribution policy and also
4
provider has all customer related information like unused
allocated space of a particular user.
Different storage providers offer storage as a service with
different characteristics. For example, as a service user of
AT&T Synaptic Storage, one can replicate two copies remotely
but as a client of Peerl CloudeOne Storage, it is possible to
have one ' s data replicated at any or all of the 1 7 data centers.
Nirvanix Cloud Storage offers one node, two nodes and three
nodes replication. Thus, characteristics of storage vary from
provider to provider. For experimental purposes here, we have
considered types of user, replication of node, tiered memory,
number of child account and number of supported application.
But these characteristics are not fixed for all service providers;
provider can change characteristic parameter according to their
need easily in the proposed model.
A. Parameters Used
The proposed model uses various parameters that have
been deliberated as follows :
1) Type of user (Type) : Types of cloud users are
increasing day by day. These users may belong to different
fields like media, education etc. Also, users of one field can be
more active than users of the other field. Thus, it is possible to
categorize users on the basis of their activeness. In this work,
four types of users are assumed according to their affiliation in
the different groups. These groups are field of education,
health-service, media & entertainment and financial sectors.
These types have been referenced by randomly assigning one
integer value 1 ,2,3 ,4 to each user.
2) Unused Allocated Storage (VAS) : Provider offers
storage as a service to the users. It is possible that users will not
be utilizing all resources assigned to them by the provider. This
work assumes that storage is provided in GB . Different types
of users may have different units of unused allocated storage.
In the experiment, a number has been randomly assigned
between 1 0 and 1 000 to type 1 and type2 users, between 2 to
1 00 to type3 and type4 users. Suppose a user gets a number
288, it means this user has 288GB unused allocated storage.
3) Fairness ofAllocation ofResource (f) : The term (t) has
already been discussed in section IV.A. Value of f can be 0 or
1 . Here, without loss of generosity, we have assigned randomly
o or 1 to each user for fairness of allocation of resources. If a
user has f= 1 , it means allocation of storage for this user is fair
otherwise unfair.
4) Replication of Nodes (RoN) : "Performance is highly
affected by the speed-of-light latency, TCP latency, (both of
which are directly correlated to circuit distance between user
and files), as well as packet loss. By placing the files closer to
the user, both speed-of-light latency and TCP latency are
minimized. Packet loss is also minimized because the
probability of packet loss increases as distance increases" [ 1 2].
In this work, it is assumed that provider is providing three
types of node replication to place the data closer to the user.
For three types of node replication, one integer number
between 1 and 3 inclusively has been randomly assigned to
each user.
5
5) Storage in Tier Context (tier) : Generally, three types of
tier storage are considered in Cloud; Tier l , Tier2 and Tier3 .
Tierl storage is most scalable, most reliable and highest
performing storage, generally used for business critical
applications. Tier2 storage is used for unstructured data,
backup, and multimedia etc. Tier3 provides low performance
with high scalable capacity, so is used for long term storage for
archival and offline storage. For three types of tiered storage,
one integer number between 1 and 3 inclusively has been
randomly assigned to each user.
6) Number of child account (ace) and supported
application (app) : It is possible for more than one account to
access the same Cloud storage. For example, in a university, an
administrator can provide child account to each student to
access online library. Similarly, Cloud storage can be accessed
by more than one application. For this, a number between 1 0
and 1 000 has been randomly assigned to each user for number
of supported child account and also between 5 and 1 00 to each
7) Dummy Variable (d) : A dummy variable d is considered
user for number of supported application.
in the model which equals 1 if the user supports redistribution
of unused allocated resource and 0 otherwise. Just like fairness,
o or 1 to each user has been assigned randomly for supporting
redistribution.
This way, values of different variables for each user is
randomly generated. Then 1 00 instances of 1 00 users, 1 00
instances of 200 users, 1 00 instances of 3 00 users up to 1 000
users have been created. For each instance, we calculated the
value of Bf /AR u (where Bf and AR u are probit estimates, as
r=
discussed in section IV.A). Substituting the estimate
of Bf /AR u as well as 0.85 into equation ( 1 3), an estimated
value of j for each instance is obtained.
B. Analysis ofExperimental Results
Results have been analyzed by carrying out the experiment
as below.
Experiment 1 :
Experiment 1 observes the posItIve response for varying
number of users. In fig. 4, it is shown that how many positive
responses U > 0) out of 1 00 instances, for different number of
users varying from 1 00 users to 1 000 users, are obtained. It is
found that number of positive response out of 1 00 instances
for fixed numbers of users vary irregularly.
N u m b e r of p o s i t i ve response Vs N u mber of u sers
w ,-----
50 +---�----------__��____--_.__
40
N u mber of
positive 30
response
10
o ...."--
... ----"---�---'-------"------"-
1 00 2 00 300 400 ,00 GOO 1 00 BOO 900 1 00 U
N u m ber of users
Figure 4: Number of positive response out of 1 00 instances
 Experiment 2:
I n this, for the goodness of fit (i.e. measurement o f
discrepancy between expected value and observed value) o f
the proposed model, percentage of correctly predicted measure
(by comparing the actual value with predicted value) for each
instance has been calculated. Average of percent correctly
predicted measure of 1 00 instances of 1 00 users has been
taken which has been repeated for instances of 200 users and
so on (fig. 5). It is observed that as nwnbers of users is
increasing, average of percent correctly predicted measure is
decreasing. Notable is that this value is always greater than
50%.
Ave rage goo d n e s s of f i t measu re
,------
Vs
users
62
bO
58
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, problem of future resource scarcity in Cloud
is identified and a mathematical model is proposed that is
based on an econometric model to solve the identified problem.
For the validity of the model, characteristics of cloud storage
have been observed from different available storage service
providers and on a randomly generated data set. It is possible
that provider can change the parameters easily according to his
need. By observing different results it is concluded that number
of positive response and sum of positive response depends on a
particular instance and do not depend on the number of users.
This paper considers only the Data storage. Cloud resources
N u m b e r of
are not limited to storage as other important resources also
exist in Cloud such as CPU, memory, bandwidth etc. Future
work may address other Cloud resources and it will be possible
to apply this model on other Cloud resources.

• • •
Averag@
good n ess o f f i t 56 REFERENCES

• • •
m e a s u re
of 100 ' 4

• • •
[I] B. Rochwerger, D. Breitgand, E. Levy, A. Galis, K. Nagin, I. M.
Llorente, R. Montero, Y. Wolfsthal, E. Elmroth, 1. Caceres, M. Ben­
Instances
52
' 0
Yehuda, W. Emmerich, F. Galan, 'The reservoir model and architecture
48

1 00 2 00 JOO 400 500 6 00 700 BOO 900 1 000

N u m ber of
Figure 5: Average goodness of fit measure of 100 instances
Experiment 3 :
The value o f j for different values o f r has been estimated.
Since percent correctly predicted measure does not depend on
r, it will be fixed for different values of r . All instance in
which we get positive response for r =.85, we also get positive
response for different values of r . For the instances with
negative response ; we get the negative response for different
values of r.
To compare the results with different values ofr, we took
sum of values of j for each instance of 1 00 users with positive
response and repeated the same with 200 users, 300 users and
so on. It has been shown in fig. 6. It is observed, from this
experiment, that as the value of r is increasing, value of swn
of positive response is decreasing for fixed number of users. It
is also observed that just like the nwnber of positive response
sum of positive response for 1 00 instances with fixed nwnber
of users also vary irregularly. So it is clear that sum of positive
response also does not depend on the number of users rather it
depends on a particular instance.
Su m of positive r e p o n s e Vs Coeffi cient of
res i d u a l prog res s i o n
30 ,-
---
Sum of positive 1 �
response
10
o
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8
coeffic ient of residual progression
Figure 6: Sum of positive response of 1 00 instances
for open federated Cloud computing", IBM Journal of Research and
u s e rs
Development 53 (4), Pages 1 - 1 1 , 2009.
[2] Sivadon Chaisiri, Bu-Sung Lee, Dusit Niyato, "Optimization of
Resource Provisioning Cost in Cloud Computing", IEEE Transactions
on Services Computing, Vol. 5, No. 2, April-June 2012.
[3] Baomin Xua, Chunyan Zhaob, Enzhao Hua, Bin Hu, "Job scheduling
algorithm based on Berger model in Cloud environment", Advances in
Engineering Software, Vol. 42, Pages 4 1 9-425, 20 1 1 .
[4] Kevin L . Mills, Christopher Dabrowski, "Can Economics-based
Resource Allocation Prove Effective in a Computation Marketplace?",
Journal of Grid Computing, Vol. 6, Pages 291-3 1 1 , 2008.
[5] Bo An, Victor Lesser, David Irwin, Michael Zink, "Automated
Negotiation with Decommitment for Dynamic Resource Allocation in
Cloud Computing", Proc. of 9th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and
Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 20 ( 0), van der Hoek, Kaminka,
Lesperance, Luck and Sen (eds.), Toronto, Canada, Pages 98 1 -988,
May 2010.
[6] Yee-Ming Chen, Hsin-Mei Yeh, "Autonomous Adaptive Agents for
Market-based Resource Allocation Of Cloud Computing", Proceedings
of the Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning and
Cybernetics, Qingdao, Pages 2760-2764, 14 July 2010.
[7] B. Schnizler, D. Neumann, D. Veit, C. Weinhardt, 'Trading grid
services a multi-attribute combinatorial approach", European Journal of
Operational Research 1 87 (3), Pages 943-96 1 ,2008.
[8] Sharrukh Zaman, Daniel Grosu, "Combinatorial auction-based
allocation of virtual machine instances in Clouds", Journal of Parallel
and Distributed Computing, Vol. 73,Pages 495-508, 20 1 3 .
[9] Giacomo Corneo, Christina M. Fong, "What's the monetary value of
distributive justice?", Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 92, Pages 289-
308, 2008.
[ 1 0] R. Buyya, C. S . Yeo, S . Venugopal, J. Broberg, T. Brandic, "Cloud
Computing and Emerging IT Platforms: Vision, Hype, and Reality for
. 1 W users
Delivering Computing as the 5th Utility", Future Generation Computer
. 2 00 us.ers
Systems , Vol. 25, Pages 599-6 1 6, 2009 .
• 3{U lI�el!l
[11] R. Buyya, R. Ranj an and R. N. Calheiros, "Modeling and simulation of
. 4 00 users
scalable Cloud computing environments and the CloudSim Toolkit:
. SOO uw.!>
challenges and opportunities", Proceedings of the seventh high
. 600 users performance computing and simulation conference (HPCS 2009,
. /(Xl UM�f!> ISBN :978-1 -4244-49071), Leipzig, Germany. New York, USA: IEEE
• SOO users Press; June 2 1-24, 2009 .
0.85 0.9 0.95 900 u�ef'" [12] M. Staimer "The compelling price/performance economics of the
. 1 000 users. Nirvanix storage delivery network versus in-house storage", Report by
Dragon Slayer Consulting, 2008.