Runtime Management of Service Level Agreements through Proactive Resource Provisioning for a Cloud Environment

Abstract

By leveraging the Internet, cloud computing allows users to have on-demand access to large pools of configurable computing resources. PaaS (Platform as a Service), IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service), and SaaS (Software as a Service) are three basic categories for the services provided by cloud the computing environments. Quality of service (QoS) metrics like reliability, availability, performance, and cost determine which resources and services are available in a cloud computing scenario. Provider and the user-specified performance characteristics, such as, rejection rate, throughput, response time, financial cost, and energy consumption, form the basis for QoS. To fulfil the needs of its customers, cloud computing must ensure that its services are given with the appropriate quality of service QoS. A “A legally enforceable agreement known as a “Service Level Agreement” (SLA) between a service provider and a customer that outlines service objectives, quality of service requirements, and any associated financial penalties for falling short. We, therefore, presented “A Proactive Resource Supply based Run-time Monitoring of SLA in Cloud Computing”, which allows for the proactive management of SLAs during run-time via the provisioning of cloud services and resources. Within the framework of the proposed work, SLAs are negotiated between cloud users and providers at run-time utilizing SLA Manager. Resources are proactively allocated via the Resource Manager to cut down on SLA violations and misdetection costs. As metrics of performance, we looked at the frequency with which SLAs were broken and the money lost due to false positives. We compared the proposed PRP-RM-SLA model’s simulated performance to the popular existing SLA-based allocation strategy SCOOTER. According to simulation data, the suggested PRP-RM-SLA model is 25% more effective than the current work SCOOTER at reducing SLA breaches and the cost of misdetection.