Skip to main content

Determining Appropriate Large Object Stores with a Multi-criteria Approach

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Data Management Technologies and Applications (DATA 2017)

Abstract

The area of storage solutions is becoming more and more heterogeneous. Even in the case of relational databases, there are several offerings, which differ from vendor to vendor and are offered for different deployments like on-premises or in the Cloud, as Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) or as a special Virtual Machine on the Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) level. Beyond traditional relational databases, the NoSQL idea has gained a lot of attraction. Indeed, there are various services and products available from several providers. Each storage solution has virtues of its own even within the same product category for certain aspects. For example, some systems are offered as cloud services and pursue a pay-as-you-go principle without upfront investments or license costs. Others can be installed on premises, thus achieving higher privacy and security. Some store redundantly to achieve high reliability for higher costs. This paper suggests a multi-criteria approach for finding appropriate storage for large objects. Large objects might be, for instance, images of virtual machines, high resolution analysis images, or consumer videos. Multi-criteria means that individual storage requirements can be attached to objects and containers having the overall goal in mind to relieve applications from the burden to find corresponding appropriate storage systems. For efficient storage and retrieval, a metadata-based approach is presented that relies on an association with storage objects and containers. The heterogeneity of involved systems and their interfaces is handled by a federation approach that allows for transparent usage of several storages in parallel. All together applications benefit from the specific advantages of particular storage solutions for specific problems. In particular, the paper presents the required extensions for an object storage developed by the VISION Cloud project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abu-Libdeh, H., Princehouse, L., Weatherspoon, H.: RACS: a case for cloud storage diversity. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, SoCC 2010, pp. 229–240. ACM, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Apache Libcloud: a unified interface to the cloud. http://libcloud.apache.org/. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  3. Bermbach, D., Klems, M., Tai, S., Menzel, M.: Metastorage: a federated cloud storage system to manage consistency-latency tradeoffs. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 4th International Conference on Cloud Computing, CLOUD 2011, pp. 452–459. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brantner, M., Florescu, D., Graf, D., Kossmann, D., Kraska, T.: Building a database on S3. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, p. 251 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Broberg, J., Buyya, R., Tari, Z.: Creating a ‘Cloud Storage’ mashup for high performance, low cost content delivery. In: Feuerlicht, G., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5472, pp. 178–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01247-1_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Bunch, C., et al.: An evaluation of distributed datastores using the appscale cloud platform. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing, CLOUD 2010, pp. 305–312. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. CDMI: Cloud data management interface version 1.1.1. https://www.snia.org/sites/default/files/CDMI_Spec_v1.1.1.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  8. CloudSwitch Homepage. http://www.cloudswitch.com. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  9. Deltacloud Homepage. http://deltacloud.apache.org/. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  10. Fielding, R., Taylor, R.: Principled design of the modern web architecture. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 2(2), 115–150 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fox, A., et al.: Above the clouds: a Berkeley view of cloud computing. Report UCB/EECS, 28, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gogouvitis, S.V., Katsaros, G., Kyriazis, D., Voulodimos, A., Talyansky, R., Varvarigou, T.: Retrieving, storing, correlating and distributing information for cloud management. In: Vanmechelen, K., Altmann, J., Rana, O.F. (eds.) GECON 2012. LNCS, vol. 7714, pp. 114–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35194-5_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Hohenstein, U., Jaeger, M., Dippl, S., Bahar, E., Vernik, G., Kolodner, E.: An approach for hybrid clouds using vision cloud federation. In: 5th International Conference on Cloud Computing, GRIDs, and Virtualization (Cloud Computing), Venice, pp. 100–107 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hohenstein, U., Jaeger, M., Gogouvitis, S.: A multi-criteria approach for large-object cloud storage. In: 6th International Conference on Data Science, Technology and Applications (DATA 2017), Madrid, Spain, pp. 75–86 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jaeger, M.C., Messina, A., Lorenz, M., Gogouvitis, S.V., Kyriazis, D., Kolodner, E.K., Suk, X., Bahar, E.: Cloud-based content centric storage for large systems. In: Proceedings of Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems - FedCSIS 2012, Wroclaw, Poland, 9–12 September 2012, pp. 987–994 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kolodner, E., et al.: A cloud environment for data intensive storage services. In: CloudCom, pp. 357–366 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kolodner, E., et al.: Data intensive storage services on clouds: limitations, challenges and enablers. In: Petcu, D., Vazquez-Poletti, J. (eds.) European Research Activities in Cloud Computing, pp. 68–96. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, New Castle upon Tyne (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mell, P., Grance, T.: The NIST definition of cloud computing. NIST special publication 800-145, Sept 2011

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nasuni Homepage. http://www.nasuni.com/. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  20. Nimbula Homepage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbula. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  21. Nirvanix Homepage. http://www.nirvanix.com/products-services/cloudcomplete-hybrid-cloud-storage/index.aspx. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  22. NoSQL databases. http://nosql-database.org. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  23. Sandalage, P., Fowler, M.: NoSQL Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Emerging World of Polyglot Persistence. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sheth, A., Larson, J.: Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. ACM Comput. Surv. 22(3), 183–236 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. SmeStorage Homepage. https://code.google.com/p/smestorage. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

  26. Vernik, G., et al.: Data on-boarding in federated storage clouds. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Cloud Computing, CLOUD 2013, pp. 244–251. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  27. VISION-Cloud project consortium: high level architectural specification release 1.0, vision cloud project deliverable D10.2, June 2011. http://www.visioncloud.com. Accessed 15 May 2017

  28. VISION-Cloud project consortium: data access layer: design and open specification release 2.0, deliverable D30.3b, Sept 2012. http://www.visioncloud.com/. Accessed 15 May 2017

  29. Junker, U.: QUICKXPLAIN: preferred explanations and relaxations for over-constrained problems. In: Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 167–172 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  30. ZeroMQ. http://zeromq.org/. Accessed 15 Nov 2017

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to the results presented in this paper has partially received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7 2007-2013) Project VISION Cloud under grant agreement number 217019 and is accordingly based on its deliverables and research publications as citations have pointed out.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Uwe Hohenstein , Spyridon V. Gogouvitis or Michael C. Jaeger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hohenstein, U., Gogouvitis, S.V., Jaeger, M.C. (2018). Determining Appropriate Large Object Stores with a Multi-criteria Approach. In: Filipe, J., Bernardino, J., Quix, C. (eds) Data Management Technologies and Applications. DATA 2017. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 814. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94809-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94809-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94808-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94809-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics