2020 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Technologies for
Industry 4.0 (STI), 19-20 December, Dhaka
Performance Analysis and Comparison Among
Different Task Scheduling Algorithms in Cloud
Computing
2020 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Technologies for Industry 4.0 (STI) |978-1-6654-0489-1 /20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/STI50764.2020.9350466
Md. Tanvir Alam Siddique, Selina Sharmin, Tanvir Ahammad
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Jagannath University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
tanviralamsiddique0@gmail.com, {selina, tanvir}@cse.jnu.ac.bd
Abstract—In the field of cloud computing, efficient task
scheduling plays a vital role. Cloud computing is an on-demand
service where resources are shared virtually by the users to
complete their tasks. The main concept of task scheduling is
to execute the tasks in such an order that can enhance the
performance with full resource utilization and minimum loss.
Already a lot of scheduling algorithm exists targeting to various
goals like reducing execution time, cost, makespan and increase
resource utilization, load balancing, etc. In this work, we have
mainly carried out the performance analysis and comparison
among various well-known task scheduling algorithms. The
algorithms are examined and implemented in a well-known
cloud simulator (CloudSim) to observe their performances by
varying different parameters. Finally, the performance metrics
like makespan, waiting time, turnaround time, throughput, and
load balancing are observed by plotting the results graphically.
Along with the comparative analysis, this work also assists one
to identify a better scheduling algorithm based on different
scheduling constraints and criteria.
Index Terms—Cloud computing, Comparative analysis,
CloudSim, Load balancing, Makespan, Task Scheduling, Virtu-
alization, Datacenter.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Cloud computing is an on-demand service that offers
shared services, applications, infrastructure, and other devices
on a pay-as-you-go basis depending on the requirements of
the customer [1]. In this smart era, sustainable development
is not possible without cloud computing. Cloud computing
is crucial for industry revolution 4.0 cause it helps to collect
and consolidate the industry’s data while also providing
an open-source collaboration platform to speed up and
optimize research for whole industry profits. Normally, cloud
computing provides us three main services SaaS (Software
as a Service), IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service), and PaaS
(Platform as a Service) [1].
Millions of physical machines operate digitally in cloud
technology, as well as the cloud provides the illusion of
unlimited resources that can be continuously scaled up or
scaled down by using virtualization. Since cloud services
are shared by a large number of clients and their tasks are
submitted to the cloud, planning and carrying out these tasks
has just become a difficulty while maintaining the various
user requirements and QoS. Therefore, task scheduling is a
978-1-6654-0489-1/20/$31.00©20XX IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on June 27,2021 at 06:27:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
major research area in cloud computing. Task scheduling in
cloud computing defines how to map a set of tasks to a set
of virtual machines. An effective task scheduling algorithm
helps us to increase overall system performances. Moreover,
due to poor task scheduling, most of the time cloud resources
are underutilized. In the literature, various task scheduling
again identifies the most suitable scheduling algorithm under
different user requirements or criteria and performance
parameters throws a huge research challenge. Therefore,
a proper comparative analysis among task scheduling can
assist users and providers to enhance the system performances.
In the literature, some works have been done to observe the
performances among the different task scheduling algorithms.
In [4] [5] [6] the authors make analysis between the max-min
and min-min algorithms. Analysis and comparison among the
SJF, FCFS, max-min, min-min task scheduling algorithms
are done in [7] [8]. In [17] load balancing of Round-robin
(RR) is compared with max-min and min-min algorithms.
In [18] details about particle swarm optimization based task
scheduling (PSO) and various aspects of PSO are described.
However, most of the works have done the theoretical
analysis. Without a proper graphical analysis sometimes it
is hard for the users to get a proper analysis of the algorithms.
In this work, we have studied six well-known task
scheduling algorithms and implement them on cloud
simulation toolkit (CloudSim). Although the algorithms are
quite not up to date, still they are widely used. Varying the
number of tasks and virtual machines some performance
metrics (makespan, waiting time, throughput, turnaround
time and load balancing) are observed. Finally, the results
are plotted graphically and performance analysis, as well
as comparison among those algorithms, have done so that
one can easily able to identify which algorithm is better for
specific requirements or criteria.
The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows, Section
II outlines the relevant works of comparison-based scheduling
algorithms in the cloud computing setting and Section III
provides an overview of our task scheduling algorithms that
have been implemented. Section IV discusses the experimental
findings and the comparative study and ultimately, section V
discusses the conclusion and future work respectively.
II. R ELATED W ORKS
Most of the existing works in literature deal with generating
new scheduling algorithms. However, very few works have
been done to provide analysis and comparison among the
task scheduling algorithms. In [4], a comparative study of
Min-Min and Max-Min algorithms is based on the makespan
parameter that was conducted by the authors. A static method
and task-independent and batch mode scheduling are used by
both methods. Sanjay et al. in [5], the Min-Min and Max-Min
algorithms have been used for job scheduling in the cloud
environment. They have used time-shared and space-shared
virtual machines models. Tested in CloudSim, they would
like to demonstrate that the Max-min approach is more
effective than other strategies in space-shared mode, and the
Min-Min approach provides minimal task processing delays
and Max-Min gives appropriate load balancing.
M. Joundy et al. [7] have shown a comparative study
among two hybrids, SJF, RR, Max-Min, and Min-Min
scheduling algorithms in graphically. To determine their
efficiency, they checked those methods using 3 distinct data
sets. Their experimental findings ensure that the Min-Min
algorithm’s dominance over state-of-the-art algorithms and
SJF demonstrates a reasonable waiting period, but there is
more response time. In [8] a comparative analysis among SJF,
FCFS, Max-Min, and Min-Min scheduling algorithms has
done based on mean, max, and variance execution time and
load balancing graphically. They further show that Min-Min
achieves better makespan compared to other methods.
In papers [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] a number
of existing algorithms (FCFS, SJF, RR, PSO etc.) for job
scheduling are compared and tabulated with each other
through their effects or evaluated theoretically [17]. It helps
to consider the wide variety of choices for scheduling for
selecting one for a particular environment. However, graphical
observation is absent here.
Valarmathi et al in [18] detailed theme was given about the
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) based algorithm and its
several task allocation variants in a cloud environment. PSO
produces better results for task Scheduling Problems. This
paper offers the researchers insight into different dimensions
of PSO and Task Scheduling. In [19], centered on the
PSO methodology, they proposed a multi-objective process
scheduling scheme. An effective encoding method with
a weighted linear transforming fitness value that contains
two metrics of scheduling, i.e. make-pan and utilization of
resources. They showed that the scheduling of workflows
based on PSO outshines GA over multiple parameters.
While these works provide comparison and analysis of
different task scheduling algorithms, in this work we aim
to analyze them by implementing them based on different
Authorized licensed use limited to: BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on June 27,2021 at 06:27:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
parameters. Also plotting the results graphically would aid
the users to make a quick and efficient decision to fulfill their
demands.
III. OVERVIEW OF S ELECTED TASK S CHEDULING
A LGORITHMS
We have described the scheduling processes, parameters,
and other features of our task scheduling algorithms imple-
mented and compared in the cloud computing environment in
this section. There are three main strategies in task scheduling.
Firstly, in-network properties and their associated state data
will be collected. Then, based on various criteria, the target
resource is chosen. Finally, it submits the task to the chosen
resource [2].
A. First Come First Serve(FCFS)
First Come First Serve means that the jobs are done
according to the time of arrival of the task order. The FCFS
scheduling strategy for internal job scheduling is supported by
the CloudSim toolkit. A clear policy that assigns a VM to the
host on an FCFS basis is the default policy enforced by VM
provisioning [15]. The queue is handled by the (first in first to
go) FIFO process. Quick jobs at the end of a queue can wait
until a large task is done at the front of the queues [20] . It is
straightforward and simple to understand and non-preemptive.
B. Shortest Job First(SJF)
Shortest Job First Scheduling is used by putting the shorter
task in front of the queue and the longer tasks at the end of
a queue to order a series of tasks. This minimizes the overall
waiting period. It also suffers from starvation for longer tasks
when a large number of small jobs are open. It will not execute
if a job with a greater burst time has the highest priority as it
is a non-preemptive scheduling algorithm. In severe situations,
the tasks with big service time can never be served if the
system has little idle time [7].
C. Round Robin Scheduling Algorithm(RR)
One of the easiest, most traditional, and most used task
scheduling is known to be the Round Robin algorithm. It
transfers the load to all the resources evenly. The big advantage
is that tasks are performed wisely in a series of turns and there
is a necessity to late until the past tasks is executed. Therefore,
it has no starvation problem. But the poor hand is, it consumes
a lot of effort to achieve all the jobs if the workload is high
and the queue is filled, and a perfectly appropriate quantum
of time is difficult to determine [9]. The use of too short
quantum time induces too many context switches and reduces
the performance of the CPU. Using too long time quantum,
poor response time like FCFS in some situations [7].
D. Min-Min scheduling Algorithm
This algorithm is split into 2 stages. The estimated com-
pletion time of each assignment in a metatask is determined
for each resource in the first stage. In the second stage, the
task is chosen and assigned to the corresponding element by
shortest estimated completion time. Then the chosen task is
erased from the meta-list. This process is repeated before
you map all the tasks in the metatask [4]. This raises the
cumulative completion time of all the tasks and thereby raises
the makespan. To finish their operation, the long tasks have to
pause for smaller tasks. It causes for unbalancing load in Min-
Min [20]. The min-min method is easy, but at the time of the
number of tasks in the metatask is small relative to large tasks,
it gives instant results. On the other hand, if the number of
smaller tasks is overlaid by large-size, it offers bad utilization
of resources and bot good makespan since large tasks have to
pause until all low size tasks to be done [4].
E. Max-Min Scheduling Algorithm
Max-Min resolves some problem of the Min-Min algorithm
(when the number of large tasks is higher than the small task
then larger makespan). The Max-Min algorithm works the
same procedures except in the second level, the key difference
is that a task is chosen that has the largest time of completion
rather than the minimum completion time as in min-min and
allocated to a element that offers the less time of completion.
This procedure is iterated until all the tasks are mapped or the
meta task becomes null [4]. Therefore, the larger tasks can be
performed first on quicker machines in max-min, and smaller
tasks can be performed on other possible machines in parallel,
resulting in a better make-pan and balanced workload than the
previous process [11].
F. Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm(PSO)
The technique is based on observations of swarms such
as schools of fish and bird flocking. The output is extracted
by the best fitness according the function of fitness. Finally,
the best solution is extracted from the fitness values of each
particle and the strongest optimal solution is assumed to be the
maximum value. For the practice population, it starts with free
parameters of velocity and position and tasks are regarded as
particles here. Like GA, the fitness function tests each particle
[20]. In the late iterative procedure, it can drop into local
optima and have a poor rate of convergence. PSO is the easiest
implementation and a polynomial connected to the size of the
problem is its computational complexity. The traffic workload
using PSO is balanced and can be used for any number of tasks
and resources, and almost optimal solutions can be identified
for mapping all tasks to the collection of resources available
[20].
IV. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS AND C OMPARATIVE
P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS
We are using the CloudSim simulation toolkit for the
comparative performance study of the selected approaches.
Our cloudlet (task) properties are: number of CPU is 1,
file-size is 300, the output size is 300 and the cloudlet length
is generated randomly in CloudSim. And VM’s properties
are: 512 MB RAM, 250 MIPS (million instruction per
second), bandwidth = 1000, 1 CPU and VMM name is
”Xen”. Those all properties are the same for our selected
algorithms at the time of simulation in CloudSim. Since
Authorized licensed use limited to: BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on June 27,2021 at 06:27:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
cloudlet length is generated randomly so the value of all
performance metrics is changed randomly in a certain range
based on specific algorithm’s processes. For this cause, we
determine the average value for all performance metrics for
doing the comparative analysis. For getting the average value,
we run each algorithm 10 to 3000 times. For the simulation
analysis, we observe the throughput, waiting time, makespan,
turnaround time and load balancing by varying the number
of tasks, and virtual machines.
Throughput is calculated as the total number of tasks per
second that are completed. The average throughput of all
compared task scheduling is shown in Figure 1. In comparison
to the remaining methods, higher throughput is found for PSO
and Min-Min. Max-Min also provides medium-throughput as
compared to the other five. Here, the PSO executes 19 tasks
per 10 seconds and Min-Min executes 17 tasks per 10 seconds
considering 5 VM and 15 tasks for each algorithm. PSO can
find near-optimal solutions for mapping all tasks to the set of
available resources so it achieves high throughput. For Min-
Min, there are only smaller tasks on quicker machines and the
throughput is improved here. Among those methods, FCFS,
SJF and RR achieve less throughput.
Fig. 1. Average throughput Comparison among six algorithms
Load balancing is an important factor in cloud computing.
Load balancing means, how to distribute the workloads
among different cloud resources. Figure 2 illustrates the
average load distribution of all the compared algorithms. It
shows that RR, Max-Min, then PSO perform proper load
balance compared to the rest of the methods. Max-Min
gives better load balancing since smaller jobs are executed
concurrently while other longer jobs are executed. FCFS,
SJF and Min-Min achieve worst load balancing. In Min-Min
and SJF, the long tasks have to wait for smaller tasks to end
their execution so the workload can’t be distributed properly
means an Unbalanced load.
Makespan is the time differential between a series of tasks
beginning and finishing. Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate
the average makespan of all the compared algorithms. The
value of the average makespan for each algorithm has been
calculated after running the code 3000 times in a loop, for
better accuracy. Figure 3 shows the average makespan by
 TABLE II
AVERAGE M AKESPAN T IME ( VARYING THE NUMBER OF VM’ S )

Number Average Makespan Time (in millisecond)

of VM’s SJF RR Min-Min Max-Min FCFS PSO
5 60259 65892 54116 50236 70498 45896
10 35986 38952 31871 28659 41875 27123
15 24589 29865 24040 22569 31880 16985
20 23594 24563 20031 16359 26572 15264
25 17865 18659 17524 14569 23261 11456
30 16589 20356 15854 12594 21040 11256

Fig. 2. Average load distribution Comparison among six algorithms

changing the number of tasks and generated from the value of

Table I. In this figure, PSO had proved superiority among those
algorithms by considering makespan, because PSO can find
near-optimal solutions. Max-Min has also reduced makespan
since smaller jobs are executed concurrently while other longer
jobs are executed. FCFS and RR (for a large number of
tasks, more context switch, and increase makespan) get the
highest makespan compared to the rest of the methods. Figure
4 shows the average makespan by changing the number of
VMs and generated from the value of Table II. Here we see Fig. 4. Average makespan Comparison by changing the number of VMs
that, if the number of VM’s is increased then the makespan
is decreased noticeably. In this figure, in the same way, PSO Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the average waiting time
gives minimum makespan and then, the Max-Min gives better of all the compared algorithms. We run the code 3000 times
makespan. in a loop for getting this. Figure 5 shows by changing the
number of tasks and Figure 6 shows by changing the number
TABLE I of VMs. It is observed from the results in Figure 5 and Figure
AVERAGE M AKESPAN T IME ( VARYING THE NUMBER OF TASKS ) 6, PSO outperforms compared to the other five algorithms
because PSO can find near-optimal solutions by evaluating the
n. of Average Makespan Time (in millisecond) fitness value of each task effectively. Min-Min also provides
Tasks SJF RR MinMin MaxMin FCFS PSO acceptable waiting time because the shortest tasks are assigned
15 10256 11420 9429 8856 12278 8235 in the fastest machine. SJF also provides less waiting time
30 17256 19853 16272 14895 21306 14025
60 32598 34895 29240 27896 38360 23985 because it reduces the waiting time of the short jobs though it
120 60259 65986 53969 50289 70261 45896 increases the waiting time of the long jobs. On the other hand,
240 86957 120569 102029 90258 131665 81256 FCFS and RR give the highest average waiting time among
480 205694 235589 193847 165982 250000 155892
those six algorithms.

Fig. 5. Average waiting time Comparison by changing the number of tasks

Fig. 3. Average makespan Comparison by changing the number of tasks

Authorized licensed use limited to: BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on June 27,2021 at 06:27:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig. 6. Average waiting time Comparison by changing the number of VMs
We have also observed the turnaround time that indicates
the summation of waiting time and the execution time for
a specific task. Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows the average
turnaround time of all the compared algorithms. For getting
this we run our code 3000 times in a loop. Figure 7 has shown
by changing the number of tasks and Figure 8 has shown by
changing the number of VMs. It is observed from the results
in Figure 7 and Figure 8, PSO outperforms compared to the
other five algorithms. Max-Min also provides less turnaround
time since smaller jobs are executed concurrently while other
longer jobs are executed. On contrary, the FCFS, SJF, RR and
Min-Min give the highest turnaround time.
Fig. 7. Average turnaround time Comparison by changing the number of
tasks
Fig. 8. Average turnaround time Comparison by changing the number of
VMs
Authorized licensed use limited to: BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on June 27,2021 at 06:27:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this research, we compared six traditional but widely
used task scheduling algorithms in the cloud computing en-
vironment. Finally, from the experimental assessment, we
can infer that the PSO performed successfully and won the
competition against the six existing methods implemented,
taking into account the average waiting time, turnaround
time, makespan, load balancing, and throughput. When we
consider load balancing then the Max-min, PSO and RR can be
better choices. Since the execution of the task is performed a
cyclic way, so RR achieves acceptable load balancing and less
response time but it is not considering other criteria. Min-Min
and SJF showing the good waiting time but its bottleneck is
a starvation problem. Max-Min also provides better makespan
and turnaround time. In the future, in the cloud computing
world, we want to conduct performance analysis and com-
parative study of newly developed and successful scheduling
algorithms.
R EFERENCES
[1] Peter Mell and Tim Grance, “The nist definition of cloud computing”,
2011.
[2] A. Gupta, H. S. Bhadauria, A. Singh and J. C. Patni, ”A theo-
retical comparison of job scheduling algorithms in cloud computing
environment”, 2015 1st International Conference on Next Generation
Computing Technologies (NGCT), Dehradun, 2015, pp. 16-20, doi:
10.1109/NGCT.2015.7375074.
[3] Malhotra, Agarwal, and Jaiswal, “Virtualization in cloud com-
puting”, Journal of Information Technology Software Engineering,
doi:10.4172/2165-7866.1000136, vol. 04, 2014.
[4] Neha Sharma and D. Sanjay Tyagi, “A comparative analysis of min-min
and max-min algorithms based on the makespan parameter”, Interna-
tional Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, vol. 8, no.
03, April 2017.
[5] Sanjay Kumar and Atul Mishra, “Application of min-min and max-
min algorithm for task scheduling in cloud environment under time
shared and space shared vm models”, International Journal of Computing
Academic Research (IJCAR), vol. 04, no. 06, pp. 182–190, December
2015.
[6] R. Jemina Priyadarsini and L. Arockiam, “Performance evaluation of
min-min and max-min algorithms for job scheduling in federated cloud”,
International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 â 8887), vol. 99,
no. 18, August 2014.
[7] M. Joundy, S. Sarhan, and S. Elmougy, “Task scheduling algorithms
in cloud computing: A comparative study”, International Journal of
Intelligent Computing And Information Science.
[8] Essaies Meriam and Nabil Tabbane, “A survey on cloud computing
scheduling algorithms”, 2016 Global Summit on Computer Information
Technology, DOI: 10.1109/GSCIT.2016.6, 2017.
[9] Abhishek Gupta, H. S. Bhadauriay, Annapurna Singhz, and Jagdish
Chandra Patnix, “A theoretical comparison of job scheduling algorithms
in cloud computing environment”, 2015 1st International Conference on
Next Generation Computing Technologies (NGCT-2015), 4-5 September
2015.
[10] Arnav Wadhonkar and Deepti Theng, “A survey on different schedul-
ing algorithms in cloud computing”, International Conference on Ad-
vances in Electrical, Electronics, Information, Communication and Bio-
Informatics (AEEICB16), 2016.
[11] Teena Mathew, K. Chandra Sekaran, and John Jose, “Study and
analysis of various task scheduling algorithms in the cloud comput-
ing environment”, International Conference on Advances in Comput-
ing,Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), IEEE, 2014.
[12] Aswathy B Namboothiri and D. R. Joshua Samuel Raj, “A comparative
study on job scheduling algorithm augmenting load balancing in cloud”,
Second International Conference on Science Technology Engineering
And Management(ICONSTEM), IEEE, 2016.
[13] V.Seethalakshmi, D. V. Govindasamy, D. V. Akila, G. Sivaranjini, K.
Sindhuja, and K. Prasanth, “A survey of different workflow scheduling
algorithms in cloud computing”, International Conference on Compu-
tation of Power,Energy, Information and Communication (ICCPEIC),
IEEE, 2019.
[14] Arghavan Keivani and Jules-Raymond Tapamo, “Task scheduling in
cloud computing: A review”, IEEE, 2019.
[15] Kavyasri M N and D. B. Ramesh, “Comparative study of scheduling
algorithms to enhance the performance of virtual machines in cloud
computing”, 2016.
[16] Yash P. Dave, Avani S. Shelat, Dhara S. Patel, and Rutvij H. Jhaveri,
“Various job scheduling algorithms in cloud computing: A survey”, in
ICICES2014 - S.A.Engineering College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India,
IEEE, 2014.
[17] Graves and Alex, “Load balancing strategy using round robin algo-
rithm”, Asia-pacific Journal of Convergent Research Interchange, vol.
02, no. 03, pp. 1–10, September 30, 2016.
[18] R. Valarmathi and D. T. Sheela, “A comprehensive survey on task
scheduling for parallel workloads based on particle swarm optimisation
under cloud environment”, Second International Conference On Com-
puting and Communications Technologies(ICCCT-17), 2017.
[19] Shubham, R. Gupta, V. Gajera, and P. K. Jana, “An effectivemulti-
objective workflow scheduling in cloud computing: A pso based ap-
proach”, Ninth International Conference on Contemporary Computing
(IC3), 2016, pp. 1–6.
[20] Ruba Abu Khurma, Heba Al Harahsheh, and Ahmad Sharieh, “Task
scheduling algorithm in cloud computing based on modified round robin
algorithm”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology,
vol. 96, no. 17, pp. 5869–5888, 15th September 2018.

Authorized licensed use limited to: BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on June 27,2021 at 06:27:46 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.