2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2015.03.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Capacity-driven utility model for service level agreement negotiation of cloud services

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, Yuan et al (2016) built workload scheduling integrated with admission control for distributed cloud data centres, whilst Bi et al (2017) test application-aware dynamic resource provisioning in cloud data centres. Whilst Ranaldo and Zimeo (2016) applied more proactive measures and propose capacity-driven utility model for SLA bilateral negotiation to optimise the utility for cloud service providers, costs and penalties prices, Messina et al (2014Messina et al ( , 2016 discuss an agent based negotiation protocol for cloud SLA.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, Yuan et al (2016) built workload scheduling integrated with admission control for distributed cloud data centres, whilst Bi et al (2017) test application-aware dynamic resource provisioning in cloud data centres. Whilst Ranaldo and Zimeo (2016) applied more proactive measures and propose capacity-driven utility model for SLA bilateral negotiation to optimise the utility for cloud service providers, costs and penalties prices, Messina et al (2014Messina et al ( , 2016 discuss an agent based negotiation protocol for cloud SLA.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such a limit helps to avoid mistakes like an unbounded, automated penalty that was discarded in 2005 by the UK Royal Mail company after causing a loss of £280 million in one year and a half. 1 However, despite the importance of checking the validity of compensations, it has not been dealt with by current research proposals that use some form of compensation in their SLAs [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Instead, they mostly focus on the optimisations of service costs by finding a trade-off between compensation and operation costs or on the automation of several parts of compensation management.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, the approach is decentralized in nature and thus, can avoid the single point of failure which exists in centralized approaches [6], [14]- [16]. Negotiation has been broadly used in service selection and composition for building distributed SBSs [17]- [21]. Most of these works focus on the study of service level agreement, i.e., studying the features and performance of different negotiation strategies while overlooking QoS correlations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%