Cloud Simulation Model Based on Large Numbers Law for Evaluating Fault Tolerance Approaches

  • Oussama HannacheEmail author
  • Mohamed Batouche
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 1)


Cloud computing is an emerging paradigm that consists of hosting and delivering computing services across the web. The availability is one of the security features such as integrity and confidentiality. Certainly endorsing high availability by the improvement of fault tolerance techniques is one of the major concerns of the cloud. Elsewhere we cannot afford to directly evaluate new approaches for cost reason. For this reason we introduce in this paper a probabilistic model for simulation based on the principle of “Large Numbers Law”. The idea is to simulate a scenarios of cloud virtual environment in which faults can occur in a random way following failure occurrence probabilities. The global unavailability measured is faithful to unavailability average known of Cloud providers. The model allows live virtual machine migration in order to evaluate proactive fault tolerance approaches based on preemptive migration.


Cloud computing High availability Fault tolerance Probabilistic model Simulation Large numbers law Virtual machine migration 


  1. 1.
    Foster, I., Zhao, Y., Raicu, I., Lu, S.: Cloud computing and grid computing 360-degree compared. In: Grid Computing Environments Workshop, 2008. GCE’08, pp. 1–10 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang, Q., Varela, C.A.: Impact of cloud computing virtualization strategies on workloads’ performance. In: 2011 Fourth IEEE International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), pp. 130–137 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pham, C., Cao, P., Kalbarczyk, Z., Iyer, R.K.: Toward a high availability cloud: techniques and challenges. In: 2012 IEEE/IFIP 42nd International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshops (DSN-W), pp. 1–6 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaushal, V., Bala, A.: Autonomic fault tolerance using haproxy in cloud environment. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Technol. 7(2), 54–59 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mell, P., Grance, T.: The NIST definition of cloud computing. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Information Technology Laboratory (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shankarwar Mahesh, U., Pawar Ambika, V.: Security and Privacy in Cloud Computing: A Survey, vol. 2, pp. 1–11. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kusic, D., Kephart, J.O., Hanson, J.E., Kandasamy, N., Jiang, G.: Power and performance management of virtualized computing environments via lookahead control. In: International Conference on Autonomic Computing, 2008. ICAC’08, pp. 3–12 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perez-Botero, D., Szefer, J., Lee, R.B.: Characterizing hypervisor vulnerabilities in cloud computing servers. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Workshop on Security in Cloud Computing (Cloud Computing’13), pp. 3–10. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Riddle, A.R., Chung, S.M.: A survey on the security of hypervisors in cloud computing. In: 2015 IEEE 35th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW), pp. 100–104 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leelipushpam, P.G.J., Sharmila, J.: Live VM migration techniques in cloud environment: a survey. In: 2013 IEEE Conference on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), pp. 408–413 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sahni, S., Varma, V.: A hybrid approach to live migration of virtual machines. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing in Emerging Markets (CCEM), pp. 1–5 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark, C., Fraser, K., Hand, S., Hansen, J.G., Jul, E., Limpach, C., Pratt, I., Warfield, A.: Live migration of virtual machines. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, vol. 2, pp. 273–286 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hines, M.R., Gopalan, K.: Post-copy based live virtual machine migration using adaptive pre-paging and dynamic self-ballooning. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGPLAN/SIGOPS International Conference on Virtual Execution Environments, pp. 51–60. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaushal, V., Bala, A.: Autonomic fault tolerance using haproxy in cloud environment. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Technol. 7(2), 54–59 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amin, Z., Sethi, N., Singh, H.: Review on fault tolerance techniques in cloud computing. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 116(8), 13 (2015) (0975–8887)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Folkerts, E., Alexandrov, A., Sachs, K., Iosup, A., Markl, V., Tosun, C.: Benchmarking in the cloud: what it should, can, and cannot be. In: 4th TPC Technology Conference, TPCTC Volume pp. 173–188 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hannache, O., Batouche, M.: Probabilistic model for evaluating a proactive fault tolerance approach in the cloud. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), pp. 94–99 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arzuaga, E., Kaeli, D.R.: Quantifying load imbalance on virtualized enterprise servers. In WOSP/SIPEW’10: Proceedings of the First Joint WOSP/SIPEW International Conference on Performance Engineering, pp. 235–242. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, J., Wang, Q., Jayasinghe, D., Park, J., Zhu, T., Pu, C.: Performance overhead among three hypervisors: an experimental study using Hadoop benchmarks. In: 2013 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), pp. 9–16 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MISC Laboratory, Computer Science DepartmentCollege of NTIC, Constantine University 2ConstantineAlgeria

Personalised recommendations