By Topic

Concurrent Negotiation and Coordination for Grid Resource Coallocation

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$33 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

2 Author(s)
Kwang Mong Sim ; Dept. of Inf. & Commun., Gwangju Inst. of Sci. & Technol., Gwangju, South Korea ; Benyun Shi

Bolstering resource coallocation is essential for realizing the Grid vision, because computationally intensive applications often require multiple computing resources from different administrative domains. Given that resource providers and consumers may have different requirements, successfully obtaining commitments through concurrent negotiations with multiple resource providers to simultaneously access several resources is a very challenging task for consumers. The impetus of this paper is that it is one of the earliest works that consider a concurrent negotiation mechanism for Grid resource coallocation. The concurrent negotiation mechanism is designed for 1) managing (de)commitment of contracts through one-to-many negotiations and 2) coordination of multiple concurrent one-to-many negotiations between a consumer and multiple resource providers. The novel contributions of this paper are devising 1) a utility-oriented coordination (UOC) strategy, 2) three classes of commitment management strategies (CMSs) for concurrent negotiation, and 3) the negotiation protocols of consumers and providers. Implementing these ideas in a testbed, three series of experiments were carried out in a variety of settings to compare the following: 1) the CMSs in this paper with the work of others in a single one-to-many negotiation environment for one resource where decommitment is allowed for both provider and consumer agents; 2) the performance of the three classes of CMSs in different resource market types; and 3) the UOC strategy with the work of others [e.g., the patient coordination strategy (PCS )] for coordinating multiple concurrent negotiations. Empirical results show the following: 1) the UOC strategy achieved higher utility, faster negotiation speed, and higher success rates than PCS for different resource market types; and 2) the CMS in this paper achieved higher final utility than the CM- - S in other works. Additionally, the properties of the three classes of CMSs in different kinds of resource markets are also verified.

Published in:

Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:40 ,  Issue: 3 )