A cloud service selection model using improved ranked voting method

Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience

Volumn 28, Issue 13, 2016, Pages 3540-3567

  Baranwal, Gaurav ^a   Vidyarthi, Deo Prakash ^a  

^a JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY   (India)

Author keywords

cloud computing; metrics categorization; quality of service (QoS); ranked voting; service measure; virtual machine (VM)

Indexed keywords

CLOUD COMPUTING; COPYRIGHTS; LEARNING TO RANK; TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES;

BUSINESS MODELING; CLOUD SERVICE PROVIDERS; CLOUD SERVICE SELECTIONS; METRICS CATEGORIZATION; RANKED VOTING; SELECTION PROBLEMS; SERVICE MEASURE; UTILITY COMPUTING;

QUALITY OF SERVICE;

EID: 84953431647     PISSN: 15320626     EISSN: 15320634     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cpe.3740     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Khan N, Noraziah A, Deris MM, Ismail EI. Cloud computing: comparison of various features. Proc. International Conference on Digital Enterprise and Information Systems (DEIS), London, UK 2011; 194:243–254.
2. Cloud computing services – a comparison, white paper by Torry Harris Business Solutions, Jan 2010.
3. Obata T, Ishii H. A method for discriminating efficient candidates with ranked voting. European Journal of Operational Research 2003; 151:233–237.
4. Siegel J, Perdue J. Cloud services measures for global use: the service measurement index (SMI). Proc. IEEE Annual SRII Global Conference (SRII), 2012; 411–415.
5. Buyya R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S, Broberg J, Brandic I. Cloud Computing and Emerging IT Platforms: Vision, Hype, and Reality for Delivering Computing as the 5th Utility. Future Generation Computer Systems 2009; 25:599–616.
6. https://cloudsleuth.net/global-provider-view. 2014
7. Habib SM, Ries S, Mühlhäuser M. Cloud computing landscape and research challenges regarding trust and reputation. Proc. Seventh IEEE International Conference on Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing and Seventh International Conference on Autonomic & Trusted Computing (UIC/ATC), 2010; 410–415.
8. www.nirvanix.com/downloads/analyst-reports/nirvanix-vs-in-house-storage.pdf. 2014
9. Kihal SE, Schlereth C, Skiera B, Price comparison for infrastructure as a service. Proc. European Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain, 2012; 161.
10. http://www.cloudorado.com/. 2014
11. http://phystech.com/download/ubench.html. 2014
12. Schad J, Dittrich J, Quiane-Ruiz J. Runtime measurements in the cloud: observing, analyzing, and reducing variance. Proc. VLDB Endowment 2010; 3(1–2):460–471.
13. www.cloudspectator.com/. 2014
14. Cloud server performance a comparative analysis of 5 large cloud IaaS providers, Cloud Spectator Study June 5, 2013
15. Williams LG, Smith CU. Web application scalability: a model-based approach. Proc. Int. CMG Conference, 2004; 215–226.
16. Islam S, Lee K, Fekete A, Liu A. How a Consumer can Measure Elasticity for Cloud Platforms. Proc. Third joint WOSP/SIPEW international conference on Performance Engineering: Boston, Massachusetts, USA 2012; 85–96.
17. Arlitt M, Banerjee S, Bash C, Chen Y, Gmach D, Hoover C, Mahadevan P, Milojicic D, Pelletier E, Vishwanath RN, Shah A, Sharma P. Cloud sustainability dashboard. Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology 2010; 1.
18. Cook WD, Kress M. A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Managemant Science 1990; 36(11):1302–1310.
19. Green RH, Doyle JR, Cook WD. Preference voting and project ranking using dea and cross-evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research 1996; 90:461–472.
20. Hashimoto A. A ranked voting system using a dea/ar exclusion model: a note. European Journal of Operational Research 1997; 97:600–604.
21. http://cloud-computing.findthebest.com. 2014
22. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/calculator/. 2014
23. Li A, Yang X, Kandula S, Zhang M. CloudCmp: Comparing Public Cloud Providers. Proc. 10th ACM Annual Conference on Internet Measurement: Melbourne, Australia 2010; 1–14.
24. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R. On the performance variability of production cloud services. Proc. IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud, and Grid Computing, CA, USA 2011; 104–113.
25. Iosup A, Yigitbasi N, Epema D. On the performance variability of production cloud services, Proc. IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud, and Grid Computing, CA, USA.
26. Salama M, Shawish A, Zeid A, Kouta M. Integrated QoS Utility-Based Model for Cloud Computing Service Provider Selection. Proc. of IEEE 36th International Conference on Computer Software and Applications Workshops 2012 45–50.
27. Zhang M, Ranjan R, Nepal S, Menzel M, Haller A. A declarative recommender system for cloud infrastructure services selection. Proc. Nineth International Conference GECON 2012; 7714:102–113.
28. Mouratidis H, Islam S, Kalloniatis C, Gritzalis S. A framework to support selection of cloud providers based on security and privacy requirements. Journal of Systems and Software 2013; 86:2276–2293.
29. Habib SM, Varadharajan V, Mühlhäuser M. A framework for evaluating trust of service providers in cloud marketplaces. Proc. 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing 2013; 1963–1965.
30. Kong D, Zhai Y. Trust based recommendation system in service-oriented cloud computing. Proc. IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Service Computing 2012; 176–179.
31. Badidi E. A framework for software-as-a-service selection and provisioning. International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications 2013; 5(3):189–200.
32. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1980.
33. Buckley JJ. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1985; 17:233–247.
34. Buckley JJ, Feuring T, Hayashi Y. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2001; 129:48–64.
35. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH. The compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research 2004; 156(2):445–455.
36. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R. SMICloud: a framework for comparing and ranking cloud services. Proc. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing 2011; 210–218.
37. Kwon HK, Seo KK. A decision-making model to choose a cloud service using Fuzzy AHP. Advanced Science and Technology Letters (Cloud and Super Computing 2013), 2013; 35:93–96.
38. T Chen, K Lin. A decision-making method based on interval-valued fuzzy sets for cloud service evaluation. Proc. 4th International Conference on New Trends in Information Science and Service Science (NISS), 2010; 559–564.
39. Ghafori V, Sarhadi RM. Best cloud provider selection using integrated ANP-DEMATEL and prioritizing SMI attributes. International Journal of Computer Applications 2013; 71(16):18–25.
40. Alabool HM, Mahmood AK. Trust-based service selection in public cloud computing using fuzzy modified VIKOR method. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 2013; 7(9):211–220.
41. Raharjo H, Endah D. Evaluating relationship of consistency ratio and number of alternatives on rank reversal in the AHP. Quality Engineering 2006; 18(1):39–46.
42. Yu R, Tzeng GH. A soft computing method for multi-criteria decision making with dependence and feedback. Applied Mathematics and Computation 2006; 180(1):63–75.
43. Salama M, Zeid A, Shawish A, Jiang X. A novel QoS-based framework for cloud computing service provider selection. International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing (IJCAC) 2014; 4(2):48–72.