Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 318–333 | Cite as

DFA-VMP: An efficient and secure virtual machine placement strategy under cloud environment

  • Weichao Ding
  • Chunhua Gu
  • Fei Luo
  • Yaohui Chang
  • Ulysse Rugwiro
  • Xiaoke Li
  • Geng Wen


The problem of Virtual Machine (VM) placement is critical to the security and efficiency of the cloud infrastructure. Nowadays most research focuses on the influences caused by the deployed VM on the data center load, energy consumption, resource loss, etc. Few works consider the security and privacy issues of the tenant data on the VM. For instance, as the application of virtualization technology, the VM from different tenants may be placed on one physical host. Hence, attackers may steal secrets from other tenants by using the side-channel attack based on the shared physical resources, which will threat the data security of the tenants in the cloud computing. To address the above issues, this paper proposes an efficient and secure VM placement strategy. Firstly, we define the related security and efficiency indices in the cloud computing system. Then, we establish a multi-objective constraint optimization model for the VM placement considering the security and performance of the system, and find resolution towards this model based on the discrete firefly algorithm. The experimental results in OpenStack cloud platform indicates that the above strategy can effectively reduce the possibility of malicious tenants and targeted tenants on the same physical node, and reduce energy consumption and resource loss at the data center.


Cloud computing Virtual machine secure placement Side-channel attack Energy consumption Resource loss Firefly algorithm 



This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant NO. 61472139).


  1. 1.
    Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R et al (2010) A view of cloud computing. Commun ACM 53(4):50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kang C, Wei-Ming Z (2009) Cloud computing: system instances and current research. J Softw 20(5):1337–1348 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing,, 2015, 9, 4
  4. 4.
    Ristenpart T (2009) Hey, you, get off of my cloud: exploring information leakage in third-party compute clouds. [C] CCSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vattikonda B, Das S, Shacham H (2011) Eliminating fine grained timers in Xen. In: Proceedings of 3rd ACM workshop on cloud computing security workshop (CCSW 2011), pp 41–46Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu J, Ding L, Lin Y, Min Allah N, Wang Y (2012) XenPump: a new method to mitigate timing channel in cloud computing. In: Proceedings of 5th IEEE international conference on cloud computing (CLOUD 2012), pp 678–685Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aviram A, Hu S, Ford B, Gummadi R (2010) Determinating timing channels in compute clouds. In: Proceedings of ACM workshop on cloud computing security workshop, pp 103–108Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shi J, Song X, Chen H, Zang B. (2011) Limiting cache-based side-channel in multi-tenant cloud using dynamic page coloring. In: Proceedings of 41st annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems and networks workshops (DSN-W 2011), pp 194–199Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keller K, Szefer J, Rexford J, Lee RB (2010) NoHype: virtualized cloud infrastructure without the virtualization. In: Proceedings of 37th international symposium on computer architecture (ISCA’ 10). Saint-Malo, pp 350–361Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szefer J, Keller E, Lee RB, Rexford J (2011) Eliminating the hypervisor attack surface for a more secure cloud. In: Proceedings of 18th ACM conference on computer and communications security (CCS’ 11). Chicago, pp 401–412Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coffman J, Garey MR, Johnson DS (1997) Approximation algorithms for bin packing: a survey. Approximation algorithms for Np-Hard problems. PWS Publishing, Boston, pp 46–93Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shieh A, Kandula S, Greenberg A, Kim C (2010) Seawall, performance isolation for cloud datacenter networks. In: Proceedings 2nd USENIX conference on hot topics in cloud computing (HotCloud’ 10). Boston, pp 1–1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raj H, Nathuji R, Singh A, England P (2009) Resource management for isolation enhanced cloud services. In: Proceedings of ACM workshop on cloud computing security (CCSW’ 09). Chicago, pp 77–84Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gupta D, Cherkasova L, Gardner R, Vahdat A (2006) Enforcing performance isolation across virtual machines in Xen. In: Proceedings of ACM/IFIP/USENIX international conference on middleware (Middleware’ 06). Melbourne, pp 342–362Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garfinkel T, Pfaff B, Chow J, Rosenblum M, Boneh D (2003) Terra: a virtual machine-based platform for trusted computing. In: Proceedings of 19th ACM symposium on operating systems principles (SOSP’ 03). Bolton Landing, pp 193–206Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sailer R, Jaeger T, Valdez E, Caceres R, Perez R, Berger S, Griffin J L (2005) Building a MAC-based security architecture for the Xen open-source hypervisor. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual computer security applications conferences. Tucson, pp 276– 285Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han Y, Chan J, Alpcan T, Leckie C (2014) Virtual machine allocation policies against co-resident attacks in cloud computing. In: Proceedings IEEE international conference on communications (ICC 2014), pp 786–792Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Han Y, Chan J, Alpcan T, Leckie C (2015) Using virtual machine allocation policies to defend against co-resident attacks in cloud computing. Proc IEEE Trans Dependable Secure ComputGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dian S (2012) Research and implementation of virtual machine security placement mechanism in cloud computing. [D]. South East University, Nan JingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beloglazov A, Abawajy J, Buyya R (2012) Energy-aware resource allocation heuristics for efficient management of data centers for cloud computing. Futur Gener Comput Syst 28(5):755– 768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mao-Lin T, Shen-chen P (2015) A hybrid genetic algorithm for the energy-efficient virtual machine placement problem in data centers. Neural Process Lett 41(2):211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jamali S, Malektaji S (2014) Improving grouping genetic algorithm for virtual machine placement in cloud data centers. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on computer and knowledge engineering (ICCKE). Mashhad, pp 328– 333Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu C, Chen-Yang S, Si-Tian L et al (2014) A new evolutionary multi-objective algorithm to virtual machine placement in virtualized data center. In: Proceedings of 5th IEEE international conference on software engineering and service science (ICSESS). Beijing, pp 272–275Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hendtlass T, Moser I, Randall M. (2009) Dynamic problems and nature inspired meta-heuristics. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yong-Qiang G, Hai-Bing G, Zheng-Wei Q et al (2013) A multi-objective ant colony system algorithm for virtual machine placement in cloud computing. J Comput Syst Sci 79(8):1230– 1242MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xu B, Zhi-Ping P, Fang-Xiong X et al (2015) Dynamic deployment of virtual machines in cloud computing using multi-objective optimization. Soft Comput 19(8):2265–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jian-Kang D, Hong-Bo W, Yang-Yang L et al (2014) Virtual machine placement optimizing to improve network performance in cloud data centers. J China Univ Posts Telecommun 21(3):62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yang XS (2008) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms. Luniver Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang XS (2009) Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization [C]//International Symposium on Stochastic Algorithms. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 169–178Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang X-S (2010) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms, 2nd edn. Luniver Press, FromeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang XS, He X (2013) Firefly algorithm: recent advances and applications. Int J Swarm Intell 1(1):36–50. doi: 10.1504/IJSI.2013.055801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fan X, Weber WD, Barroso LA (2007) Power provisioning for a warehouse-sized computer. In: Proceedings of 34th annual international symposium on computer architecture. New York, pp 13–23Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hu L, Jin H, Liao X, et al. (2008) Magnet: a novel scheduling policy for power reduction in cluster with virtual machines. In: Proceedings of 2008 IEEE international conference on cluster computing. Tsukuba, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Augkulanon P, Chai-ead N, Luangpaiboon P (2011) Bees and firefly algorithms for noisy nonlinear optimisation problems[A]. In: The international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, p 2Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marichelvam M K, Prabaharan T, Yang X-S (2014) A discrete firefly algorithm for the multi-objective hybrid flowshop scheduling problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(2):301– 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sayadi MK, Hafezalkotob A, Naini SGJ (2013) Firefly-inspired algorithm for discrete optimization problems: an application to manufacturing cell formation. J Manuf Syst 32(1):78– 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lu K, Sun J (2016) Convergence analysis of firefly algorithm. J Front Comput Sci Technol 10(02)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Jansen R, Brenner PR (2011) Energy efficient virtual machine allocation in the coud: an analysis of cloud allocation policies. In: Proceedings of international green computing conference and workshops (IGCC 2011), pp 1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weichao Ding
    • 1
  • Chunhua Gu
    • 1
  • Fei Luo
    • 1
  • Yaohui Chang
    • 1
  • Ulysse Rugwiro
    • 1
  • Xiaoke Li
    • 1
  • Geng Wen
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Science and EngineeringEast China University of Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina
  2. 2.School of Information Science and EngineeringShanghai University of Electric PowerShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations