Loading [a11y]/accessibility-menu.js
MAGNETIC: Multi-Agent Machine Learning-Based Approach for Energy Efficient Dynamic Consolidation in Data Centers | IEEE Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

MAGNETIC: Multi-Agent Machine Learning-Based Approach for Energy Efficient Dynamic Consolidation in Data Centers


Abstract:

Improving the energy efficiency of data centers while guaranteeing Quality of Service (QoS), together with detecting performance variability of servers caused by either h...Show More

Abstract:

Improving the energy efficiency of data centers while guaranteeing Quality of Service (QoS), together with detecting performance variability of servers caused by either hardware or software failures, are two of the major challenges for efficient resource management of large-scale cloud infrastructures. Previous works in the area of dynamic Virtual Machine (VM) consolidation are mostly focused on addressing the energy challenge, but fall short in proposing comprehensive, scalable, and low-overhead approaches that jointly tackle energy efficiency and performance variability. Moreover, they usually assume over-simplistic power models, and fail to accurately consider all the delay and power costs associated with VM migration and host power mode transition. These assumptions are no longer valid in modern servers executing heterogeneous workloads and lead to unrealistic or inefficient results. In this paper, we propose a centralized-distributed low-overhead failure-aware dynamic VM consolidation strategy to minimize energy consumption in large-scale data centers. Our approach selects the most adequate power mode and frequency of each host during runtime using a distributed multi-agent Machine Learning (ML) based strategy, and migrates the VMs accordingly using a centralized heuristic. Our Multi-AGent machine learNing-based approach for Energy efficienT dynamIc Consolidation (MAGNETIC) is implemented in a modified version of the CloudSim simulator, and considers the energy and delay overheads associated with host power mode transition and VM migration, and is evaluated using power traces collected from various workloads running in real servers and resource utilization logs from cloud data center infrastructures. Results show how our strategy reduces data center energy consumption by up to 15 percent compared to other works in the state-of-the-art (SoA), guaranteeing the same QoS and reducing the number of VM migrations and host power mode transitions by up to 86 and 90 per...
Published in: IEEE Transactions on Services Computing ( Volume: 15, Issue: 1, 01 Jan.-Feb. 2022)
Page(s): 30 - 44
Date of Publication: 31 May 2019

ISSN Information:

Funding Agency:

References is not available for this document.

1 Introduction

High energy consumption and performance variability problems are two major challenges in modern cloud data centers, as they greatly affect operational expenses, total cost of ownership and revenue [1]. Global data center electricity usage accounted for 1.1-1.5 percent of total electricity use in 2010 [2] and increases at yearly rate of 2.1 percent [3]. As most data centers rely on fossil fuels as their main energy source, huge energy consumption also results in high carbon emissions and environmental concerns. However, according to a recent report by Shehabi et al. in 2016 [4], a potential of 45 percent reduction in electricity demand of data centers can be achieved compared to current trends, by improving their energy efficiency. Moreover, for the significantly large data centers, hardware failures and software anomalies are more frequent, leading to application performance variability and, eventually, Quality of Service (QoS) degradation [5].

Select All
1.
M. Zapater, et al., “Self-organizing maps versus growing neural gas in detecting anomalies in data centres,” Logic J. IGPL, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 495–505, 2015.
2.
J. Koomey, “Growth in data center electricity use 2005 to 2010, ” Oakland, CA : Analytics Press, July., 2011.
3.
M. Avgerinou, et al., “Trends in data centre energy consumption under the european code of conduct for data centre energy efficiency,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 10, 2017, Art. no. 1470.
4.
A. Shehabi, S. J. Smith, N. Horner, I. Azevedo, R. Brown, J. Koomey, E. Masanet, D. Sartor, M. Herrlin, and W. Lintner, “United States data center energy usage report,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, LBNL-1005775, 2016.
5.
O. Tuncer, et al., “Diagnosing performance variations in HPC applications using machine learning,” in High Performance Computing, J. M. Kunkel, et al., Eds., Berlin, Germany : Springer, 2017, pp. 355–373.
6.
X. Wang and J. R. McDonald, Modern Power System Planning. New York, NY, USA : McGraw-Hill, 1994.
7.
A. Pahlevan, et al., “Energy proportionality in near-threshold computing servers and cloud data centers: Consolidating or not? ” in Proc. Des. Autom. Test Europe Conf. Exhib., 2018, pp. 147–152.
8.
M. Abdullah, et al., “A heuristic-based approach for dynamic VMs consolidation in cloud data centers,” Arabian J. Sci. Eng., vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 3535–3549, 2017.
9.
N. J. Kansal and I. Chana, “Energy-aware virtual machine migration for cloud computing—A firefly optimization approach,” J. Grid Comput., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 327–345, 2016.
10.
A. Beloglazov and R. Buyya, “Optimal online deterministic algorithms and adaptive heuristics for energy and performance efficient dynamic consolidation of virtual machines in cloud data centers,” Concurrency Comput.: Practice Experience, vol. 24, no. 13, pp. 1397–1420, 2012.
11.
T. H. Nguyen, et al., “Virtual machine consolidation with multiple usage prediction for energy-efficient cloud data centers,” IEEE Trans. Services Comput., 2017.
12.
A. Verma, et al., “pMapper: Power and migration cost aware application placement in virtualized systems,” in Proc. 9th ACM/IFIP/USENIX Int. Conf. Middleware, 2008, pp. 243–264.
13.
A. Murtazaev and S. Oh, “Sercon: Server consolidation algorithm using live migration of virtual machines for green computing,” IETE Tech. Rev., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 212–231, 2011.
14.
Q. Wu, et al., “Energy and migration cost-aware dynamic virtual machine consolidation in heterogeneous cloud datacenters,” IEEE Trans. Services Comput., 2016.
15.
F. D. Rossi, et al., “E-eco: Performance-aware energy-efficient cloud data center orchestration,” J. Netw. Comput. Appl., vol. 78, pp. 83–96, 2017.
16.
C. Isci, et al., “Agile, efficient virtualization power management with low-latency server power states,” ACM SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 96–107, 2013.
17.
A. Agelastos, et al., “The lightweight distributed metric service: A scalable infrastructure for continuous monitoring of large scale computing systems and applications,” in Proc. Int. Conf. High Perform. Comput. Netw. Storage Anal., 2014, pp. 154–165.
18.
A. Varasteh and M. Goudarzi, “Server consolidation techniques in virtualized data centers: A survey,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 772–783, Jun. 2017.
19.
C. Watkins and P. Dayan, “Technical note: Q-learning,” Mach. Learn., vol. 8, pp. 279–292, 1992.
20.
C. J. C. H. Watkins, “Learning from delayed rewards,” PhD dissertation, King’s College, Cambridge, U.K., Department of Computer Science, 1989.
21.
J. Hu and M. P. Wellman, “Nash Q-learning for general-sum stochastic games,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 4, no. Nov., pp. 1039–1069, 2003.
22.
R. N. Calheiros, et al., “CloudSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms,” Software: Practice Experience, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 23–50, 2011.
23.
E. Feller, et al., “A case for fully decentralized dynamic VM consolidation in clouds,” in Proc. IEEE 4th Int. Conf. Cloud Comput. Technol. Sci., 2012, pp. 26–33.
24.
S. Voulgaris, et al., “CYCLON: Inexpensive membership management for unstructured P2P overlays,” J. Netw. Syst. Manage., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 197–217, 2005.
25.
J. A. Brandt, et al., “Enabling advanced operational analysis through multi-subsystem data integration on trinity,” in Proc. Cray Users Group, 2015.
26.
A. Agelastos, et al., “Toward rapid understanding of production HPC applications and systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Cluster Comput., 2015, pp. 464–473.
27.
J. Xu, et al., “Survivable virtual infrastructure mapping in virtualized data centers,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Cloud Comput., 2012, pp. 196–203.
28.
E. Baseman, et al., “Interpretable anomaly detection for monitoring of high performance computing systems,” in Proc. ACM SIGKDD Outlier Definition Detection Description Demand Workshop, 2016.
29.
O. Ibidunmoye, “Performance anomaly detection and resolution for autonomous clouds,” PhD dissertation, Dept. Comput. Sci., Umeå Univ., Umeå, Sweden, 2017.
30.
A. Beloglazov, et al., “Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for cloud computing,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 755–768, 2012.

Contact IEEE to Subscribe

References

References is not available for this document.