Resource Re-allocation for Data Inter-dependent Continuous Tasks in Grids

  • Valeriia HaberlandEmail author
  • Simon Miles
  • Michael Luck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10207)


Many researchers focus on resource intensive tasks which have to be run continuously over long periods. A Grid may offer resources for these tasks, but they are contested by multiple client agents. Hence, a Grid might be unwilling to allocate its resources for long terms, leading to tasks’ interruptions. This issue becomes more substantial when tasks are data inter-dependent, where one interrupted task may cause an interruption of a bundle of other tasks. In this paper, we discuss a new resource re-allocation strategy for a client, in which resources are re-allocated between the client tasks in order to avoid prolonged interruptions. Those re-allocations are decided by a client agent, but they should be agreed with a Grid and can be performed only by a Grid. Our strategy has been tested within different Grid environments and noticeably improves client utilities in almost all cases.


Continuous inter-dependent tasks Resource re-allocation Client’s decision-making mechanism 


  1. 1.
    Andrzejak, A., et al.: Characterizing and predicting resource demand by periodicity mining. Netw. Syst. Manag. 13(2), 175–196 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apache: Storm - distributed and fault-tolerant realtime computation. Accessed June 2014
  3. 3.
    Babu, S., et al.: Continuous queries over data streams. SIGMOD Rec. 30(3), 109–120 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barbieri, D.F., et al.: C-SPARQL: SPARQL for continuous querying. In: The 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 1061–1062. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghanem, M., et al.: Sensor grids for air pollution monitoring. In: The 3rd UK e-Science All Hands Meeting (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haberland, V.: Strategies for the execution of long-term continuous and simultaneous tasks in grids. Ph.D. thesis, NMS, King’s College London, UK (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haberland, V., et al.: Negotiation to execute continuous long-term tasks. In: Schaub, T., et al. (ed.) The 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263, pp. 1019–1020 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haberland, V., et al.: Negotiation strategy for continuous long-term tasks in a grid environment. Auton. Agents Multi-agent Syst. 31(1), 130–150 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iosup, A., et al.: The grid workloads archive. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 24(7), 672–686 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jin, H., et al.: A run-time scheduling policy for dependent tasks in grid computing systems. In: The 6th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies, pp. 521–523 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kondo, D., et al.: Characterizing and evaluating desktop grids: an empirical study. In: The 18th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Le-Phuoc, D., et al.: A middleware framework for scalable management of linked streams. Web Semant.: Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 16, 42–51 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, L.T., et al.: A non-critical path earliest-finish algorithm for inter-dependent tasks in heterogeneous computing environments. In: The 11th IEEE International High Performance Computing and Communications, pp. 603–608 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lesser, V., et al.: Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS domain-independent coordination framework. Auton. Agents Multi-agent Syst. 9(1–2), 87–143 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meriem, M., Belabbas, Y.: Dynamic dependent tasks assignment for grid computing. In: Hsu, C.-H., Yang, L.T., Park, J.H., Yeo, S.-S. (eds.) ICA3PP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6082, pp. 112–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-13136-3_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Motwani, R., et al.: Query processing, resource management, and approximation in a data stream management system. In: The 1st Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, pp. 245–256 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandnes, F.E., Sinnen, O.: Stochastic DFS for multiprocessor scheduling of cyclic taskgraphs. In: Liew, K.-M., Shen, H., See, S., Cai, W., Fan, P., Horiguchi, S. (eds.) PDCAT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3320, pp. 354–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30501-9_75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sardinha, A., et al.: Scheduling cyclic task graphs with SCC-Map. In: The 3rd Workshop on Applications for Multi-Core Architectures, pp. 54–59 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sequeda, J.F., et al.: Linked stream data: a position paper. In: The 2nd International Workshop on Semantic Sensor Networks, vol. 522, pp. 148–157 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Terry, D., et al.: Continuous queries over append-only databases. SIGMOD Rec. 21(2), 321–330 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 10, 115–152 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang, T., et al.: Heuristic algorithms for scheduling iterative task computations on distributed memory machines. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 8(6), 608–622 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao, H., et al.: A low-cost rescheduling policy for dependent tasks on grid computing systems. In: The European Across Grids Conference, pp. 21–31 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tungsten Centre for Intelligent Data AnalyticsGoldsmiths, University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations