arxiv: v2 [cs.dc] 31 Aug 2015

Transcription

1 Maximizing Profit of Clou Brokers uner Quantize Billing Cycles: a Dynamic Pricing Strategy base on Ski-Rental Problem Gourav Saha an Ramkrishna Pasumarthy arxiv: v2 [cs.dc] 31 Aug 215 Abstract In clou computing, users scale their resources (computational) base on their nee. There is massive literature ealing with such resource scaling algorithms. These works ignore a funamental constrain impose by all Clou Service Proviers (CSP), i.e. one has to pay for a fixe minimum uration irrespective of their usage. Such quantization in billing cycles poses problem for users with sporaic workloa. In recent literature, Clou Broker (CB) has been introuce for the benefit of such users. A CB rents resources from CSP an in turn provies service to users to generate profit. Contract between CB an user is that of pay-what-you-use/pay-per-use. However CB faces the challenge of Quantize Billing Cycles as it negotiates with CSP. We esign two algorithms, one fully online an the other partially online, which maximizes the profit of the CB. The key iea is to regulate users eman using ynamic pricing. Our algorithm is inspire by the Ski-Rental problem. We erive competitive ratio of these algorithms an also conuct simulations using real worl traces to prove the efficiency of our algorithm. A. Overview I. INTRODUCTION There is no universal efinition of clou computing. However as far as our research is concerne, the most apt efinition of clou computing is foun in [1] which can be quote as: computing as a utility. In our ay to ay life the most common utilities are electricity, water, gas, heat, postpai mobile services etc. Similarly in clou computing, computing resources (like CPU, memory, storage, network omains, virtual esktop) are rente to users base on their eman. From user s viewpoint, it eliminates the nee of an upfront investment as an user can pay base on the amount of resources it has use. This is terme as pay-per-use or payas-you-go moel. Therefore, resource scaling is the most funamental aspect of clou computing an hence extensive amount of effort has been channele to explore this area. Clou Service Proviers (or CSP s), like Amazon, ElasticHost etc, rent computing resource to the users in form of Virtual Machines (also calle instances) or VMs. Scaling of VMs revolves aroun two funamental questions: 1. From Users Perspective: How to scale VMs to optimize a certain objective? 2. From CSP s Perspective: How to support the active VMs using minimum number of physical servers? In clou computing literature the former is often calle auto scaling while the latter is calle ynamic provisioning. These two questions are inee similar an rely on a common line of research. Various researchers approache these two problems with ifferent objectives an by using ifferent mathematical tools. In the following we will give a brief account of these approaches. Concerning auto scaling, the most simplest methos are the Static Threshol base policies [2] where the scaling of VMs is triggere when certain CPU parameters (CPU loa, response time) crosses a pre-efine threshol. Such methos are too simple an if not esigne properly face the problem of limit-cycles. Queuing theory base techniques are also very well evelope. Some well cite papers in this regar can be [3], [4]. Theoretic results available in queuing theory uses simplifie moels an hence cannot be irectly applie to complex systems like those encountere in clou computing framework. Also the results are statistical implying that the analysis is true only over a long run after the system reaches steay-state. Control Theory base approaches aim to solve the latter problem by trying to control the transients [5], [6]. They are generally reactive methos, an hence are not goo for workloas which have a lot of suen spikes. There is a lot of active research concerning proactive methos. They epen on preictive abilities an use tools like Moel Preictive Controller [7], Time Series Analysis [8], [9], Machine Learning [1]. Work one in [9] is impressive in the sense that the preiction algorithm has low overhea an also has the ability to istinguish fine workloa patterns. There are several tasks which are ealine sensitive. There is a separate line of research base on heuristic algorithms [11], [12] to hanle these tasks. Similar tools have been use to optimize performance of ata centers. Queuing theory has been wiely use. [13] is a goo reference in this regar as it uses much less approximation to moel a clou ata center. Control Theoretic approaches are very famous. One popular book ealing with this subject is [14]. [15] is as well cite paper which presents practically viable metho to regulate a performance metric of ata center using feeback control. A very interesting metho to save energy of a clou ata center has been presente in [16] where they use feeback control to regulate CPU clock frequency base on incoming request rate. Optimization base techniques have been irectly use to esign resource allocation strategies to maximize profit of clou ata centers [17], [18]. Another line of research consiers optimizing the electricity an the cooling cost require to run a ata center. Such problems are not trivial when electricity [19] an the water cost [2] are time varying. B. Quantize Billing Cycles an the Clou Broker There is a funamental misconception regaring resource scaling in clou computing literature. Definitely, the main objective of clou computing is elasticity, i.e. the user can scale-up or scale-own VMs base their short term nees.

2 No. of VM Time (in min) Fig. 1. A part of the google cluster usage traces showing spikes in user eman. Re circles inicates the spikes. However this short term is not infinitely small in the sense that it may not be possible to return the VMs in the very next instant after it was rente. We will explain this situation using an example. Consier that we are using on-eman instances of Amazon EC2 to satisfy these emans. Billing Cycle of AmazonEC2 on eman instance is 1 hour, i.e. you have to pay the same price if you use the VM for 1 min or 1 hour. We call this phenomenon as Quantize Billing Cycles (abbreviate as QBC) in the rest of the paper. This leas to serious problem especially for those users whose eman pattern is sporaic in nature. For e.g. Consier the workloa trace shown in Figure 1 which shows the number of VMs require to satisfy user eman. There are few spikes in the eman curve to satisfy which one nees to buy extra VMs. These VMs may be in use for a very small fraction of 1 hour after which it may be ile. However we cannot return these VMs before 1 hour 1. Hence there will be wastage of VMs. To mitigate this problem to some extent the concept of clou broker has been propose in recent literature [21], [22], [23]. A broker forms a mile man between the CSP an the general users as shown in Figure 2. The users sen their job requests to the clou broker. The clou broker rents VMs from the Clou Service Provier to service these emans. The clou broker charges the user base on the fraction of VMs resources use to service the job request. This is calle pay-what-you-use. It can also be base on per-request-basis. This transfers the challenge of QBC from the users to the clou broker. However this issue is not as critical for the clou broker as it is for the users. This can be unerstoo as follows: 1. QBC poses problems for those users whose eman is sporaic. Higher the sporaic nature, greater the loss. 2. Clou broker serves the aggregate eman of many users. In statistical sense, the sporaic/spiky nature in aggregate eman shoul be lesser compare to iniviual user s eman. This is because a summer is a iscrete integrator, a low pass filter which removes the noises. In the rest of the paper we will concentrate on how a clou 1 The user may choose to return the VM but it won t get any financial benefit. Therefore it is better to keep the VM for the entire billing cycle even though it remains ile. This is calle smart-kill. Fig. 2. Schematic showing clou broker as a mileman between Clou Service Provier (CSP) an the users. Aapte from [23]. broker can maximize its profit uner QBC. Remark: We woul like to stress that the mathematical formulation, algorithms an analysis presente here can be applie to a single user without any change. However given that a clou broker has a smoother workloa pattern compare to a single user, a broker will benefit more compare to a user. C. Existing literature an our contribution In our problem, every time a clou broker has to buy a VM it faces the risk of uner utilization of the VM in the subsequent time slots. The broker has to make a ecision without knowlege of future eman. Stuy of such problems comes uner the category of Online Algorithms, more specifically the Ski-Rental problems. There have been a few applications of Ski-Rental literature to solve real worl problems. In this section we will iscuss the ones pertaining to clou computing. These works has close resemblance with our problem. We erive our motivation from the work one in [24], [23]. In these two works the clou broker has to ecie in each time slot whether to reserve instances or to serve the eman using on-eman instances. If the eman persists for a long time then reserving is a better option. However if the eman falls own quickly it is better to use on-eman instances. Clou broker has to make this ecision without any knowlege of future eman or with partial knowlege of future eman. The authors esigne both eterministic an ranomize online algorithms an also erive their competitive ratio. [25] an [26] consiers the same problem however the moel use in [25] is more general. It tries to optimize the switching cost an electricity cost of a ata center. If there is a ecrease in eman then the ata center has to ecie whether to shut own few physical servers or let them run. To run a physical server one nees to bear the electricity bill while switching own the server incurs wear-an-tear cost. Wear-an-tear cost is higher than electricity bill in short run but smaller in the long run. If one ecies to switch off the server an immeiately later it is neee, then one saves a small electricity bill in the expense of suffering a large switching cost. Therefore taking such ecisions without knowlege of future eman is ifficult. In [25], author esigne only eterministic algorithms

3 to tackle this problem while [26] consiers both eterministic an ranomize algorithms. A recent work presente in [27] shows that the competitive ratio of the ranomize algorithms can be improve if statistical information (like first an secon orer moment) of the eman process is available. To the best of our knowlege the references given above constitutes almost all the major work ealing with the use of ski-rental framework for clou computing applications. We make two main contributions to this literature: 1. We suggest how ynamic pricing can be use to maximize the profit of the clou broker uner QBC. This can be use as an alternative to the work one in [24], [23] specially in the case where the workloa is eferrable. One can also use this approach alongsie [24], [23]. These two points will be iscusse further in Section V. 2. We show that the knowlege of future eman leas to better competitive ratio for the Partial Online algorithm. In [26] such attempts have been mae but with a major assumption on the eman graph, i.e. the eman increases or ecreases no more than one step in every time slot. A. Motivating Example II. PROBLEM FORMULATION We aim to use ynamic pricing as a control signal to regulate user eman. The motivation to use ynamic pricing in clou computing setup is erive from the paper [28]. Before proceeing forwar with the quantitative formulation of the problem, we will first consier an example to illustrate our iea. Consier the following scenario: 1. Clou broker buys VMs from Amazon at $.132 per VM. This is the cost price of the clou broker. The billing cycle of each VM is 1 hour = 6 min. 2. Duration of a time slot = 1 min. Hence a VM is active for 6 time slots. 3. Nominal selling rate = $.3 per VM per time slot. Nominal selling rate shoul be such that if the VM is in use for all the time it is active (6 time slots here) then the clou broker shoul make a profit. In our case: $.3 6 = $.18 > $.132. Hence the conition hols. 4. The clou broker has the freeom of changing the selling rate 2 at the beginning of each 1 min interval. The users remains totally aware of the current selling rate. We will investigate two cases, one with static pricing an the other with ynamic pricing. Relevant graphs are shown in Figure 3. In both the cases we start with the assumption that at time t = the clou broker has no VMs. Case 1 (Static Pricing): In static pricing, the selling price remains constant at nominal rate therefore, Deman = Actual Deman. In the 1 st interval the eman is of 2 VMs while we have VMs. So we buy 2 VMs incurring a cost of 2 $.132 = $.264. In the 2 n interval, eman is of 1 VMs while we have 2 VMs (bought in the 1 st interval). So we buy 8 VM 2 In the work the term VM price inherently means the selling price of the VM not the cost price. VM Price a) Time (in min) Deman (No. of VMs) No. of VMs b) Time (in min) 14 Actual Deman Moifie Deman Active VMs (Static Pricing) Active VMs (Dynamic Pricing) Static Price Dynamic Price Actual Deman Moifie Deman c) Time (in min) Fig. 3. An example of static an ynamic pricing: a) Graph showing Price vs Time for static an ynamic pricing. b) The graph corresponing to actual eman (for static pricing) an moifie eman (for ynamic pricing). c) Graph showing actual/moifie eman along with the active number of VMs for both static an ynamic pricing case. incurring a cost of 8 $.132 = $1.56. In the next 4 intervals the eman is less than 1 VM an hence we on t have to buy any more VMs. Therefore the net cost price of the clou broker is $1.32. The net selling price of the clou broker is ( ) $.3 = $.93. Profit = Selling Price Cost Price = $.93 $1.32 = $.39, i.e. the clou broker suffere a loss. Case 2 (Dynamic Pricing): In this case the selling price varies in response to which the user s eman gets moifie. This case is similar to Case 1 except that in the 2 n an the 5 th interval the selling price goes up to $.45 an $.38 respectively. The clou broker has to buy 2 VMs an 4 VMs in the 1 st interval an 2 n interval respectively incurring a cost price of 6 $.132 = $.792. The net selling price of the clou broker is ( ) $.3+6 $ = $.888. Profit = SellingPrice CostPrice = $.888 $.792 = $.96, i.e. the clou broker makes a profit. We will encapsulate the iea behin ynamic pricing by making the following key observations: 1. The iea of increasing the selling price is to ecrease the eman an not to increase the revenue. To unerstan this point consier the 2 n interval. The actual eman was 1 VMs which coul have lea to a revenue of $.3 if the rate was nominal. As the selling price increase to $.45 the eman reuce to 6 VMs leaing to an revenue of $.27. Therefore the net revenue in the 2 n interval ecrease even though the selling price increase. Similar argument is true for the 5 th interval. Therefore whenever there is an increase in price there is a ecrease

4 VM(1) Resource Scaler (CB Controlle) VM(2) Available VM s Clou Service Provier (CSP) VM(n) Resource Scheuler (CB Controlle) Scale Down Valve (CSP Controlle) Clou Broker VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM VM Fig. 4. t Task Queue γt + λt λ t Deman Control Valve (CB Controlle) Cartoonistic representation of Clou Brokerage mechanism. in revenue (an hence in profit) in that interval. Pictorially speaking, the revenue loss suffere in ynamic pricing can be capture by the area between the soli black curve an the ashe blue curve in Figure 3b. 2. Yet ynamic pricing makes more profit than static pricing. This is because in static pricing, many VMs are unerutilize an hence oes not contribute to the revenue. This is clearly shown in Figure 3c. Unerutilize VMs for static case correspons to the area between the soli black curve an the ashe re curve while that in ynamic case correspons to the area between the ashe green curve an the ashe blue curve. Definitely the area corresponing to static case is more. 3. The iea behin ynamic pricing is: Suffer a small loss in one interval by ecreasing the eman (Refere as Deman Loss later) rather than buying a VM an then suffering a major loss in the subsequent intervals ue to low eman (Refere as VM Loss later). B. Quantitative Moeling Clou brokerage mechanism basically consist of two blocks: 1) Resource Scheuler 2) Resource Scaler. This is shown in Figure 4. Both resource scheuler an resource scaler are controlle by the clou broker. The job of the Resource Scheuler is to scheule the incoming tasks onto the available VMs. While oing so it has to consier service level agreement (or SLAs). Resource Scheuler can be esigne using well establishe theoretic tools as iscusse in Section I-A. The role of the resource scaler is to rent (scale-up) VMs from CSP an also to perform ynamic pricing in orer to maximize the profit of the clou broker. In this paper, we assume that resource scheuler is alreay esigne an concentrate on esigning algorithms for Resource Scaler. Note that the esign of Resource Scheuler an Resource Scaler can be ecouple. The Resource Scheuler shoul just upate the Resource Scaler regaring the number of VMs require to complete the tasks in a given time slot. Before moving forwar, please note Users the scale-own valve which is controlle by CSP. As shown in Figure 4, this is not in control of the clou broker. This aptly captures the notion of QBC an the process of smartkill. As mentione in Section I-B, ue to the presence of QBC there is no point of giving back a VM before its billing cycle ens. This will be equivalent to the CSP automatically scaling own the VMs after its billing cycle. Therefore from clou broker s perspective: Only scaling-up of VMs is controllable but scaling-own is not. We will now pose our problem mathematically. We consier that the user pays the clou broker base on per-request/paywhat-you-use basis. In such a scenario the resource scaler has to solve the following profit optimization problem: OP1 : max P = T (γ t t v t ) {γ t,v t} subject to : t i=t τ+1 v i t ; t = 1, 2,..., T t = f ( t, γ t ) ; t = 1, 2,..., T In optimization problem OP 1, P is the profit to be maximize. The term (γ t t v t ) is the profit at t th interval where, γ t is the selling price per VM per time slot, t is the number of VMs require to service the incoming job request an v t is the number of VMs bought at t th interval. Without any loss of generality we normalize the cost price of a VM to 1 unit. t τ is the perio of the billing cycle an hence v i is the i=t τ+1 number of active VMs in the t th interval. t is the moifie VM eman when the selling price is γ t. The relation between the actual eman t an the moifie eman t is capture by the price-eman function f ( ). If γ t = γ, the nominal price, then t = t. The revenue earne by selling a VM at the nominal price of γ for one complete billing cycle is γ τ. For the clou broker to make profit, γ τ > 1, 1 being the cost price of a VM. It shoul be note that all the variables associate with OP1 lies in the set R +. In conventional sense, the optimization problems ealt in ski-rental framework are minimization problems. Therefore we are intereste in formulating OP1 as an equivalent minimization problem. In this regar note that P = = = (γ t t v t ) [γ t {(γ t γ t t ) + v t }] [γ t {(γ t γ t f ( t, γ t )) + v t }] (1) In equation (1) the first term γ t is not controllable an hence the maximization of P becomes equivalent to minimization of T [(γ t γ t f ( t, γ t )) + v t ]. We thus pose the following optimization problem which is equivalent to OP 1:

5 OP2 : T Deman Loss min {}}{ (γ t γ t t ) + {γ t,v t} v t subject to : t i=t τ+1 v i t ; t = 1, 2,..., T t = f ( t, γ t ) ; t = 1, 2,..., T }{{} V M Loss Intuitively speaking, OP2 oes the following: Consier that there is a hike in eman t which ecays soon. In such a case OP2 will increase the selling price γ t to reuce the eman. In this way the clou broker will suffer a small Deman Loss. Buying enough VMs to support the eman hike is not a goo option in such scenario as the clou broker may suffer a huge VM Loss in subsequent intervals ue to unerutilize VMs. But if the hike in eman persists for a long time it is better to buy VMs to support this hike. However OP2 is an offline optimization problem, i.e. to solve OP2 we nee t for all t = 1, 2,..., T. It is not possible to know in avance if an increase in eman is going to persist or will ecay soon. The challenge is to esign algorithms which can make such ecisions online base on present an past ata. Such algorithms are calle online algorithms. We now efine the concept of Competitive Ratio which will be use later in Section III to compare the performance of the online algorithm with its optimal offline counterpart. Say that an online algorithm A an the optimal algorithm OP T (OP2 here) suffers a loss L A ( ) an L OP T ( ) respectively for a given eman sequence = [ 1 2 T ] T. Then algorithm A is calle c competitive if: L A ( ) c L OP T ( ) R T + (2) Inee c 1. In inequality (2) we have slightly misuse the notation. R T + is a T imensional vector of non negative real numbers not transpose of a non negative real number. C. Properties an Assumptions Properties of Deman an Revenue Function Most of the price eman function f (, γ) (also calle eman function) foun in real worl must satisfy the following conitions: 1. f (, γ). 2. f (, γ) is monotonically increasing in. 3. f (, γ) is monotonically ecreasing in γ in the range [γ, ) while it is constant 3 at in the range [, γ ]. 4. The revenue function γf (, γ), is monotonically ecreasing in γ in the range [γ, ). This captures the iea that increasing the selling price is to ecrease the eman an not to increase the revenue. As f (, γ) is constant 3 We assume that the eman cannot increase above the actual eman even if the price ecreases below γ f (,γ) Semi-Infinite Finite γ γf (,γ) γ γ γ a) op γ b) γ γ op Semi-Infinite Finite Fig. 5. Graphs showing typical: a) Deman Functions b) Revenue Functions. Two eman functions an the corresponing revenue functions are shown. For the Semi-Infinite case [γ, ) is the operating zone while for Finite case [γ, γ op) is the operating zone. in [, γ ], it is obvious that γf (, γ) will linearly increase in this range. Revenue function is maximum at γ = γ an hence this is set as the nominal price. Let = f (, γ). Then accoring to property 4 we have < (γ) (3) γ Differentiating inequality (3) using chain rule we get < + γ γ < γ γ A eman function satisfying inequality (4) will be strictly monotonically ecreasing if >. Two cases may arise: Case 1 (Semi-Infinite Operating Zone): > for all γ [γ, ) an hence the eman function is strictly monotonically ecreasing in this range. Case 2 (Finite Operating Zone): > for all γ [γ, γ op ). For γ = γ op, =. Due to property 1, = for all γ γ op. Therefore the eman function is strictly monotonically ecreasing in the range [γ, γ op ). The range of γ where f (, γ) is strictly monotonically ecreasing is calle the operating zone. Figure 5 illustrates the concept of operating zone for the above two cases. Strict monotonic nature of f (, γ) in the operating zone implies that the function is invertible in this range. Mathematically, the following function exist in the operating zone, (4) γ = g (, ) (5) The function g ( ) returns the impose price γ t given the actual eman t an the moifie eman t. Remark: The role of ynamic pricing is to regulate the eman. In the range [, γ ], price has no effect on the eman an yet the clou broker will incur a eman loss. Therefore to minimize OP2 we work in the operating zone. Assumptions in Problem Formulation 1. We ignore the effect of reputation while formulating our optimization problem. By increasing the price we force some tasks to exit the queue. By oing this we earn

6 negative reputation of the users. A static eman function of the form t = f ( t, γ t ) oes not capture the effect of pricing history an hence the role of reputation. 2. The partial online algorithm, iscusse later in Section III, relies on eman preiction for future winow w. In reality, only an estimate of future eman is possible however we assume perfect knowlege of future eman. 3. In real-life scenario, the relation between the moifie eman t an the actual eman t is not governe by a eterministic function f ( ). Rather the eman t has a probability istribution 4 in the range [, t ] for a given γ t. However many works ealing with social welfare maximization using ynamic pricing (like [29], [28]) consier such eterministic eman function. We also assume the knowlege of f ( ). 4. Define the following function in the operating zone, p (, ) = [ g (, )] (6) Also efine two more variables, p m = min R +, (, ) p M = max R +, (, ) We impose the following constrains on p m an p M, 1 τ < p m p M < 1 (8) Inequality p M < 1 implies that renting is cheaper than buying in short run while the inequality 1 τ < p m implies that buying is cheaper in the long run. We will further elaborate this in Section III-A. Let γ = g (, ). Then accoring to inequality (8) we have (7) p m (γ) p M (9) Differentiating inequality (9) using chain rule we get p m γ + γ p M p m γ γ p M γ (1) Accoring to inequality (4), the following inequality is true in the operating zone γ γ < (11) Inequality (1) an (11) is simultaneously satisfie if p m γ γ < min (, p M γ ) (12) This is because pm γ > γ. However p M γ for γ p M while p M γ < for γ > p M. It is trivial to observe that there exist a γ satisfying inequality 12 if an only if γ > p m. Also γ is the slope of the eman function f ( ) with respect to γ. Hence inequality 12 upper an lower bouns the slope of the eman function for a given an γ. 4 One may consier that the function f ( ) is the mean of this probability istribution. III. ONLINE OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM A. Ski-Rental Problem The ski-rental problem abstracts a class of problem in which a player has to ecie whether to buy or rent a resource without a priori knowlege of the perio of usage. Renting is cheaper if the perio of usage is short while buying is cheaper in the long run. In the original problem a skier is face with the option of either buying or renting a set of skis without knowing in avance the number of ays she will be skiing. Cost of buying skis is $1 while renting cost $P per ay where P < 1. If the skier knows in avance that she will be skiing for y ays then the choice of buying or renting is simple. If y 1 P then the skier will buy the skis in the very first ay. Otherwise she will keep renting the skis for y ays. The online case is more challenging. In ski-rental literature, the concept of breakeven point is use to esign online algorithms. Such algorithms suggest that the skier shoul keep on renting the skis till the n th ay when the cost of renting np, is more than the cost of buying, i.e. np > 1. On the n th ay she shoul buy the skis. These is shown to be the most optimal eterministic online algorithm an has a competitive ratio of 2. Ski-Rental problem has been use to solve real life problems like TCP acknowlegement problem [3], Bahncar problem [31] etc. Its application in clou computing has alreay been iscusse in Section I-C. The key step towars using ski-rental literature for our problem woul be to map the following four entities in our context: 1) Renting 2) Buying 3) Buying Cost 4) Renting Cost. In remaining of this section we will efine these entities. 1. Renting: It is the process of ecreasing the eman by increasing the selling price of the VMs. To ecrease actual eman t to moifie eman t we impose selling price of γ t = g ( t, t ). 2. Buying: It is the process of buying v t VMs to support the moifie eman t. If the number of active VMs in the beginning of time slot t is x t then v t = max (, t x t ). Figure 6 illustrates the renting an buying process. In the 3 r time slot renting is equivalent to reucing the eman from 12 to 9 while buying is the process of purchasing 4 VMs. Similarly in the 1 st, 6 th an the 7 th time slot there is both renting an buying. There is no renting in the 2 n time slot, we only buy 2 VMs. On contrary there is no buying in the 8th time slot, we only rent the eman from 9 to 7. In the 4 th an the 5 th time slot there is neither renting nor buying because the number of active VMs in the beginning of these time slots is more than the actual eman. 3. Buying Cost: It is the cost of buying n VMs. As the cost price of VM is assume to be 1 unit, the cost of buying n VMs is equal to n units. 4. Renting Cost: It is the eman loss in a given time slot associate with reucing a eman from to n, where n, when the actual eman is. Mathematically R (,, n) = g (, ) g (, n) ( n) (13)

7 Deman/VMs Renting Buying Time Slot Actual Deman Initial Active VMs Moifie Deman Fig. 6. Figure showing the actual eman t (soli black curve), moifie eman t (ashe re curve) an the number of active VMs x t in the beginning of every time slot (soli blue curve). It shoul be note that unlike the renting cost foun in other ski-rental literature, for our case, R is not a constant. It is a function of, an n. However we will not mention these parameters explicitly for notational simplicity. Please Note: Renting Cost an eman loss means the same an will be use interchangeably. Now we will explain the importance of inequality constrain (8). As mentione before renting cost shoul be more than the buying cost in the long run. Given that the billing cycle is of τ perio, the cost of renting for τ perio shoul be greater than the cost of buying. Otherwise buying of VMs will never be require. The cost of buying n VMs is n while the cost of Renting of n emans for τ perio is Rτ. Hence, Rτ n. Similarly renting cost shoul be lesser than the buying cost in the short run. Therefore the cost of renting n emans for 1 perio shoul be less than the cost of buying n VMs. Hence, R n. Therefore to formulate our problem in Ski-Rental framework, it is necessary that the following inequality hols n τ R n (14) Proposition 1: If inequality (8) is satisfie then inequality 14 will hol true. Proof: Consier the following, R = g (, ) g (, n) ( n) = = n n n θ [θ g (, θ)] θ p (, θ) θ (15) p m θ = p m n (16) Equation (15) an inequality (16) comes from the efinition of p (, x) an p m (refer equation (6) an (7)). Similarly, R p M n (17) The qualitative interpretation of inequality (16) an inequality (17) is that the minimum an maximum renting cost of 1 eman is p m an p M respectively. If inequality (8) hols, then 1 τ p m. Substituting this in inequality (16) we get n τ R (18) Similarly if inequality (8) hols, then p M 1. Substituting this in inequality (17) we get R n (19) Combining inequality (18) an (19) we get inequality (14). This completes the proof. B. Online Algorithm As iscusse earlier in the previous subsection the concept of breakeven point has been wiely use to esign online algorithms in ski-rental literature. The key iea is to keep renting till the time renting cost equals buying cost. Here buying cost is the breakeven point. If renting cost excees the buying cost, we buy the resource. In this section we will apply these concepts to esign two online algorithm: 1) Fully Online Algorithm which has no knowlege of future eman 2) Partial Online Algorithm, which assumes perfect future eman information for future winow w < τ. Intuitively speaking, both Fully Online Algorithm an Partial Online Algorithm works in pessimistic sense. It always assumes that an increase in eman is not going to persist an hence it reuces the eman by increasing the selling price of the VMs. This reuction in eman incurs a renting cost. However at every time interval it calculates the Net Renting Cost in the past an the future intervals. If the Net Renting Cost excees 1 unit (the buying cost of 1 VM), it buys a new VM. The psueocoe of partial online algorithm with future winow of w is given in Algorithm 1. The same psueocoe is applicable for the fully online algorithm if we substitute w =. Both fully/partial online algorithm consist of three basic steps. In the following we will explain these steps in relation to the fully online algorithm. Step 1. Calculating Net Renting Cost We calculate the net renting cost l which we coul have been save if we rente 1 less eman in each slot for the past τ perio. Let x i be the number of active VMs at time i. Then the net renting cost is l = t i=t τ+1 R (, x i + 1, 1) (2) Equation (2) is vali only if x i + 1 i ; i [t τ + 1, t]. If for a given interval x i + 1 > i, the renting cost for that interval is. This is one in Steps 4 to 1 of Algorithm 1. Step 2. Buying new VM This is one in Steps 11 to 16 of Algorithm 1. In our case the cost of a VM is 1. If l 1 then the corresponing emans shoul not have been reuce. Rather we shoul have bought a VM to serve them. To compensate for this mistake we buy

8 Algorithm 1 Partial Online Algorithm with future preiction winow w Let x i be the number of VM s at time i 1. Set x i = ; i = 1, 2,..., T 2. Preict actual eman i for i = t, t + 1,..., t + w. 3. o 4. Set Net Renting Cost l =. Also set i = t + w τ while (i t + w) 6. if (x i + 1 i ) 7. l = l + [g ( i, x i + 1) (x i + 1) g ( i, x i) x i ] 8. en if 9. i = i en while 11. if (l 1) 12. Buy a new VM: v t = v t Upate the number of VM s that can be use in future: x i = x i + 1 ; i = t, t + 1,..., t + τ Upate the number of VM s in the history inicating that previous mistakes have been correcte: x i = x i + 1 ; i = t + w τ + 1,..., t en if 16. while (l 1) 17. if (x t t ) 18. γ t = g ( t, x t ) 19. else 2. γ = γ 21. en if 22. Jump to Step 2. a VM in the current time slot. We increase the current an the future x i by 1 to inicate that an extra VM is available. We also increase the past x i by 1 to inicate that a corrective measure was taken. We then jump back to Step 1. However if l < 1, we jump to Step 3. Step 3. Setting the Selling Price Let the number of active VMs in the current time slot be x t after performing Step 2 an Step 3. Then x t is the moifie eman. So we set our selling price as γ t = g ( t, x t ). The partial online algorithm is almost same as the fully online algorithm. The ifference lies in the calculation of Net Renting Cost in Step 1. In case of fully online algorithm it is calculate for the perio t τ + 1 to t while for partial online algorithm it is calculate for the perio t + w τ + 1 to t + w. Theorem 1: Competitive Ratio of partial online algorithm is c (α) = 1 + min (1, p M τ (1 α)) (21) where α = w τ an w < τ. Proof: Please refer appenix for the proof. Corollary 1: Fully online algorithm is 2-competitive. Proof: For fully online algorithm α =. Hence c = 1 + min (1, p M τ). Accoring to inequality (8) we have Fig. 7. c 2 1 α pmτ Graph showing the competititve ratio of partial online algorithm. p m τ 1. Also p M p m implying p M τ 1. Therefore min (1, p M τ) = 1 an hence c = 2. Note that the competive ratio of the partial online algorithm can be more explicitly written as { 2 ; α 1 1 p c = M τ 1 + p M τ (1 α) ; α > 1 1 p M τ As p M τ > 1, there always exist an α M (, 1) such that 1 + p M τ (1 α) < 2; α > α M. This gives the theoretical guarantee that future eman information inee improves the performance of the online algorithm. Figure 7 shows a typical plot of equation (21). IV. SIMULATION RESULTS We performe simulations riven by real worl traces to valiate the online ynamic pricing algorithm propose in the paper. The first step is to generate the actual eman curve. To o this we have use google cluster usage traces available in [32]. The actual eman curve is shown in Figure 7b an 7. The curve spans 1 ay an is slotte in 5 min interval. Cost price of a VM is taken to be 1 unit. A VM has a billing cycle of 1 hour an hence τ = 12. The next step is to generate the eman function. A real worl eman function can only be inferre by oing a market survey. But for the sake of simulation, we have synthesize our own eman function. This can be explaine in steps: 1. We consier a eman function of the form = f (γ). 2. A value of p m an p M satisfying inequality (8) is chosen. 3. A finite interval of price [γ, γ o ] is uniformly ivie into small parts. 4. For each part we substitute the corresponing value of γ an in inequality (12). The value of γ for this part is chosen in ranom such that it satisfies inequality (12). Using this value of γ, for the next part is calculate. As part of this simulation we will conuct two comparative stuies, first to stuy the effect of eman preiction an seconly the effect of p m. To stuy the effect of eman preiction we first synthesize a eman function with p m = 1 12 an p M =.8. We then

9 simulate Algorithm 1 for w = an w = 4. The results of the simulation is clearly shown in Figure 7b an 7c. Compare to w = 4, the reuction in eman is more in w =. This shows the pessimistic nature of our online algorithm, i.e. it prefers reucing the eman compare to buying new VMs. With increase in future winow w the algorithm tens towars the optimal counterpart. The net profit P = T (γ t t v t ) for w = is 781 units while for w = 4 it is 937 units. The net profit P is more for w = 4 an hence the net loss L (refer OP2) is less. This is in consensus with Theorem 1. We next stuie the effect of p m on our algorithm. To o this we constructe another eman function with p m = 3 12 an p M =.8. From Figure 7 an 7e we can observe that if p m is high the effect of pricing on eman is less. This is an obvious consequence of the efinition of p m. V. DISCUSSION AND EXTENSIONS We iscusse the unique challenge pose by the presence of quantize billing cycles. The ynamic pricing strategy propose in this paper can be consiere as an alternative to the work one in [24] to maximize the profit of the clou broker. Merging our algorithm with that of [24] shoul be very interesting. Such a merging will lea to a very interesting class of problems where the clou broker has to ecie whether to a) reuce the eman by increasing the VM price b) buy oneman VMs to support the eman c) reserve VMs. This problem is similar to multislope ski-rental problem. Two eterministic online algorithms were esigne to increase the profit of clou brokers in the presence of QBC. The competitive ratio of both the algorithms were erive. We showe the importance of eman preiction by eriving a better competitive ratio for the partial online algorithm than those foun in ski-rental literature. In similar lines we woul like to explicitly point out that the competitive ratio of Algorithm 3 of [24], i.e. eterministic algorithm with eman preiction winow w, has a competitive ratio of 1+pτ min ( ) w 1, τ which is better than that reporte in [24] (refer Proposition 5). This result is new in ski-rental literature. It has been wiely reporte in ski-rental literature that ranomize algorithms has better competitive ratio than its eterministic counterpart. Extening our algorithm to its ranomize counterpart shoul be trivial. However eriving a better competitive ratio for the ranomize algorithm with eman preiction may be challenging. The key iea of our algorithms is to use pricing signal to regulate user eman. One may argue that such an algorithm gives poor service to the user as it pushes tasks out of the queue in orer to maximize clou broker s profit. We woul like to make few comments in this regar: 1. Those tasks which gets pushe out of the queue can enter it again at a later instant. So we are not rejecting the tasks. Rather we are eferring it. Our algorithm is specifically goo if p M is low. A low p M implies that even with a small increase in price there will be significant change in eman. Qualitatively, a low p M correspon to tasks with low priority. Such tasks can be eferre. 2. Some literature consiers penalizing the clou provier when it fails to meet SLA s (refer [33]. Such a practice is not encourage in clou computing as it is a service oriente computing paraigm. If the clou provier accepts the task, it must meet the SLAs. If it cannot it is better that it rejects the task. We are following similar practice. 3. We can penalize clou broker to push tasks out of the queue by introucing reputation factor. As iscusse in section II-C we nee to consier ynamic price-eman function to inclue reputation factor. Such an extension of our work will be challenging but a very fruitful research. As an immeiate extension of our work we are intereste in two areas. Assumption 4 iscusse in Section II-C may not be true for all real worl eman functions. We are exploring the implication of relaxing it. Our intuition is that if we make a small moification in Algorithm 1, the competitive ratio will remain the same. We are also actively working on the ranomize algorithm for this problem. More specifically we are exploring the possibility of improving the competitive ratio of the ranomize algorithm in the presence of statistical information about the actual eman. This is motivate by the work one in [27]. APPENDIX We will enote the partial online algorithm with future winow of w by A w an the offline optimal algorithm OP2 by OP T. We will first consier two lemmas which are important for the proof. Lemma 1: Let A w buy N w VMs while OP T buy N OP T VMs throughout the time uration of t = 1 to t = T. Then for any eman sequence t, N OP T N w. Lemma 1 is an obvious consequence of the pessimistic nature of the fully/partial online algorithm as iscusse in Section III-B. Both these algorithms assumes that a rise in eman is not going to persist an hence has the tenency to reuce the eman by increasing the selling price rather than buying VMs to support the rise in eman. Therefore N OP T N w. Please refer Appenix A of [24] for the proof. Lemma 2: The net renting cost of those emans that were serve by the same VM in OP T shoul be greater than or equal to 1 (the breakeven point). Proof: The proof irectly follows from the efinition of OP T. We prove this lemma by contraiction. Consier that in OP T a VM was bought to serve emans whose net renting cost is less than 1. The loss suffere to buy a VM to support these emans is more than the loss suffere to rent these emans. Therefore there can be a better algorithm to reuce the loss which contraicts the efinition of OP T. Let A w an OP T rent n t an N t emans respectively at time t. Let R (A w ) an R (OP T ) be the net renting cost of A w an OP T respectively. We have, R (A w ) = R ( t, t, n t ) R (OP T ) = R ( t, t, N t )

10 p m =1/12 p m =3/12 VM Deman Actual w= w= b) Time ) Time VM Deman Actual p m =1/12 p m =3/ a) γ VM Price w= w=4 VM Price p m =1/12 p m =3/ c) Time e) Time Fig. 8. a) Deman function for two ifferent value of p m. b), c) Plots of actual an moifie emans an the corresponing pricing to compare the effect of preiction winow w. ), e) Plots of actual an moifie emans an the corresponing pricing to compare the effect of p m. t + w τ + 1 t t t + w Fig. 9. Figure showing the emans serve by a VM in OP T. t + τ 1 Let R (A w \OP T ) enote the net renting cost incurre in A w which is not incurre in OP T. Mathematically R (A w \OP T ) = [R ( t, t, n t ) R ( t, t, N t )] + where (x) + = max (, x). We are intereste in upper bouning R (A w \OP T ). To o this, consier the emans that were rente in A w but not in OP T. These emans were serve by not more than N OP T VMs in OP T. We focus on the emans serve by one of these N OP T VMs. This is shown in the following figure Figure 9 shows the emans serve by a VM in OP T which is bought at time t an last till t + τ 1. The shae areas shows the emans which are serve by this VM. If the area is not shae then in that time slot the VM oes not serve any eman. The shae areas can be scattere anywhere in the time interval [t, t + τ 1]. Accoring to Lemma 1, the net renting cost of the emans epicte by these shae areas shoul be greater than or equal to 1. Now we investigate how these emans will be treate by A w. While calculating the net renting cost, A w consiers both future eman an past eman. This is shown in figure 9 by the three arrows. A w calculates the net renting cost in the interval [t + w τ + 1, t + w] where t is the current time, the interval [t + w τ + 1, t] correspons to the past winow while [t + 1, t + w] is the future winow. If the net renting cost in the interval [t + w τ + 1, t + w] becomes 1, then A w will buy a VM. As mentione before the net renting cost in the interval [t, t + τ 1] is efinitely greater than or equal to 1 (ue to Lemma 1). Therefore there is efinitely a time t satisfying t t t +τ w when A w will buy a VM. The emans in the interval [t, t] will be rente while that in the interval [t + 1, t + τ 1] will be serve by the VM. The maximum renting cost of the emans in the interval [t, t] is min (1, p M (t t )). This can be unerstoo as follows: 1. The maximum renting cost of one eman is p M (refer inequality (17)). If all the intervals in the past winow [t, t] has a eman, then the maximum renting cost in the past winow is p M (t t ). However the renting cost in the interval [t, t + w] is equal to 1 an hence the renting cost in the interval [t, t] cannot excee 1. Therefore the maximum renting cost in the interval [t, t] is min (1, p M (t t )). 2. Due to inequality (8), there may be a t satisfying t t t + τ w such that p M (t t ) > 1. Therefore if A w buys a VM at time t then the emans in the interval [t, t] was rente in A w while it is serve by a VM in OP T. The maximum renting cost of these emans is min (1, p M (t t )). As mentione before, t t + τ w. Therefore the maximum renting cost of those emans which are serve by a VM in OP T but rente in A w is upper boune by min (1, p M (τ w)). Given that at most N OP T VMs serve such emans we have R (A w \OP T ) min (1, p M (τ w)) N OP T = min (1, p M τ (1 α)) N OP T (22) where α = w τ. Let δ M = min (1, p M (τ w)). We will use inequality (22) to upper boun R (A w ): R (A w ) R (OP T ) + R (A w \OP T ) R (OP T ) + δ M N OP T (23) Let L OP T be the net loss incurre in OP T. Then, L OP T = R (OP T ) + N OP T N OP T (24)

11 Similarly let L Aw be the net loss incurre in A w. We have, L Aw = R (A w ) + N w (25) R (OP T ) + δ M N OP T + N w (26) min (1, p M τ (1 α)) N OP T + N w (27) Inequality (26) is obtaine by substituting inequality (23) in equation (25). We now use Lemma 2 followe by inequality (24) in inequality (27) to get L Aw = δ M N OP T + N w δ M N OP T + N OP T (28) = (1 + δ M ) N OP T (29) (1 + δ M ) L OP T (3) Therefore the competitive ratio of A w is c = 1 + δ M = 1 + min (1, p M τ (1 α)). This proves Theorem 1. REFERENCES [1] M. Armbrust, A. Fox, R. Griffith, A. D. Joseph, R. H. Katz, A. Konwinski, G. Lee, D. A. Patterson, A. Rabkin, I. Stoica, an M. Zaharia, Above the clous: A berkeley view of clou computing, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Tech. Rep., 29. [Online]. Available: 29/EECS html [2] M. Z. Hasan, E. Magana, A. Clemm, L. Tucker, an S. L. D. Gurei, Integrate an autonomic clou resource scaling, in Network Operations an Management Symposium (NOMS), 212 IEEE. IEEE, 212, pp [3] B. Urgaonkar, P. Shenoy, A. Chanra, P. Goyal, an T. Woo, Agile ynamic provisioning of multi-tier internet applications, ACM Transactions on Autonomous an Aaptive Systems (TAAS), vol. 3, no. 1, p. 1, 28. [4] A. Ali-Elin, J. Torsson, an E. Elmroth, An aaptive hybri elasticity controller for clou infrastructures, in Network Operations an Management Symposium (NOMS), 212 IEEE. IEEE, 212, pp [5] X. Dutreilh, N. Rivierre, A. Moreau, J. Malenfant, an I. Truck, From ata center resource allocation to control theory an back, in Clou Computing (CLOUD), 21 IEEE 3r International Conference on. IEEE, 21, pp [6] P. Paala, K.-Y. Hou, K. G. Shin, X. Zhu, M. Uysal, Z. Wang, S. Singhal, an A. Merchant, Automate control of multiple virtualize resources, in Proceeings of the 4th ACM European conference on Computer systems. ACM, 29, pp [7] L. Wang, J. Xu, M. Zhao, an J. Fortes, Aaptive virtual resource management with fuzzy moel preictive control, in Proceeings of the 8th ACM international conference on Autonomic computing. ACM, 211, pp [8] E. Caron, F. Desprez, an A. Muresan, Pattern matching base forecast of non-perioic repetitive behavior for clou clients, Journal of Gri Computing, vol. 9, no. 1, pp , 211. [9] Z. Gong, X. Gu, an J. Wilkes, Press: Preictive elastic resource scaling for clou systems, in Network an Service Management (CNSM), 21 International Conference on. IEEE, 21, pp [1] P. Boik, Automating atacenter operations using machine learning, Ph.D. issertation, University of California, Berkeley, 21. [11] R. N. Calheiros an R. Buyya, Meeting ealines of scientific workflows in public clous with tasks replication, Parallel an Distribute Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 25, no. 7, pp , 214. [12] M. A. Roriguez an R. Buyya, Dealine base resource provisioningan scheuling algorithm for scientific workflows on clous, Clou Computing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 2, no. 2, pp , 214. [13] H. Khazaei, J. Misic, an V. B. Misic, Performance analysis of clou computing centers using m/g/m/m+ r queuing systems, Parallel an Distribute Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 23, no. 5, pp , 212. [14] J. L. Hellerstein, Y. Diao, S. Parekh, an D. M. Tilbury, Feeback control of computing systems. John Wiley & Sons, 24. [15] T. F. Abelzaher, K. G. Shin, an N. Bhatti, Performance guarantees for web server en-systems: A control-theoretical approach, Parallel an Distribute Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 8 96, 22. [16] W. Qin an Q. Wang, Moeling an control esign for performance management of web servers via an lpv approach, Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 15, no. 2, pp , 27. [17] D. Aragna, M. Trubian, an L. Zhang, Sla base resource allocation policies in autonomic environments, Journal of Parallel an Distribute Computing, vol. 67, no. 3, pp , 27. [18] Z. Liu, M. S. Squillante, an J. L. Wolf, On maximizing servicelevel-agreement profits, in Proceeings of the 3r ACM conference on Electronic Commerce. ACM, 21, pp [19] M. Polverini, A. Cianfrani, S. Ren, an A. V. Vasilakos, Thermal-aware scheuling of batch jobs in geographically istribute ata centers, Clou Computing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 2, no. 1, pp , 214. [2] S. Ren, Batch job scheuling for reucing water footprints in ata center, in Communication, Control, an Computing (Allerton), st Annual Allerton Conference on. IEEE, 213, pp [21] K. Vermeersch, A broker for cost-efficient qos aware resource allocation in ec2, Ph.D. issertation, Master s thesis, University of Antwerp, 211. [22] S. Nesmachnow, S. Iturriaga, an B. Dorronsoro, Efficient heuristics for profit optimization of virtual clou brokers, Computational Intelligence Magazine, IEEE, vol. 1, no. 1, pp , 215. [23] W. Wang, D. Niu, B. Li, an B. Liang, Dynamic clou resource reservation via clou brokerage, in Distribute Computing Systems (ICDCS), 213 IEEE 33r International Conference on. IEEE, 213, pp [24] W. Wang, B. Li, an B. Liang, To reserve or not to reserve: Optimal online multi-instance acquisition in iaas clous, in Proc. USENIX Intl. Conf. Autonomic Computing (ICAC), 213. [25] M. Lin, A. Wierman, L. L. Anrew, an E. Thereska, Dynamic rightsizing for power-proportional ata centers, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 21, no. 5, pp , 213. [26] T. Lu, M. Chen, an L. L. Anrew, Simple an effective ynamic provisioning for power-proportional ata centers, Parallel an Distribute Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 24, no. 6, pp , 213. [27] A. Khanafer, M. Koialam, an K. P. N. Puttaswamy, The constraine ski-rental problem an its application to online clou cost optimization, in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 213, pp [28] M. Polverini, S. Ren, an A. Cianfrani, Capacity provisioning an pricing for clou computing with energy capping, in Proc. Allerton Conference, 213, pp [29] I. Menache, A. Ozaglar, an N. Shimkin, Socially optimal pricing of clou computing resources, in VALUETOOLS, 211. [3] A. Karlin, C. Kenyon, an D. Ranall, Dynamic tcp acknowlegment an other stories about e/(e-1), Algorithmica, vol. 36, no. 3, pp , 23. [31] R. Fleischer, On the bahncar problem, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 268, no. 1, pp , 21. [32] C. Reiss, J. Wilkes, an J. Hellerstein. (211) Google cluster-usage traces: format+schema. [Online]. Available: googleclusterata/ [33] S. Di an C.-L. Wang, Error-tolerant resource allocation an payment minimization for clou system, Parallel an Distribute Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 24, no. 6, pp , 213.