20J 5 iEEE Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICiCIS 'J 5)

Intelligent Cloud Algorithms for Load Balancing

problems: A Survey

Aya A. Salah Farrag Safia Abbas Mahmoud EI Sayed M. EI-Horbaty

Faculty of Computer and Information Faculty of Computer and Information Faculty of computer and information
Sciences - Sciences - Sciences -
Ain Shams University. Ain Shams University. Ain Shams University
Cairo, Egypt Cairo, Egypt Cairo, Egypt
aya.salah@ cis.asu.edu.eg safia_abbas@cis.asu.edu.eg shorbaty@cis.asu.edu.eg

Abstract-Cloud computing services are growing very fast
especially with the high demand of mobile
applications (Apps) and services. This exponential
emphasis on the need of minimizing the makespan scheduling
and utilizing the resources efficiently based
environment. Accordingly, many load balancing algorithms have
been developed to overcome these issues using
optimization methodologies, such as Genetic Algorithms (GA),
Ant Colony optimization (ACO), Artificial Bee Colony (ABC)
and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). This paper surveys the
above intelligent optimization techniques and focuses on the Ant
Lion Optimizer (ALO) intelligent technique, also it proposes an
implementation of ALO based cloud computing environment as
efficient algorithm that expected to supplies better outcomes in
load balancing.
Keywords-Cloud computing; Load balancing;
intelligence; Ant Lion Optimizer
I. INTRODUCTION
Cloud computing has emerged from the need to outsource
computing and storage facilities to clients. Its rapid growth is
because of the huge enhancement of communication
technologies and virtualization technologies that lead most of
its systems nowadays to become essential in day to day
activities [1]. Moreover, it delivers reusable efficient
distributed resources to clients in 3 forms of services:
infrastructure as a service (IaaS), platform as a service (PaaS)
and software as service (SaaS). With companies like Amazon,
Microsoft, IBM , Google and other companies giving cloud
services ,regular clients who has no knowledge of cloud
building can easily work on what they need [1]. There are
many examples of IaaS like Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud
(Amazon EC2), Windows Azure, Google Compute Engine and
RESERVOIR [2][3]; of PaaS like Force.com and Google App
Engine[3] and of SaaS like Google Apps, Office 365 and
Confluence Cloud. With the increased need for the services of
cloud computing systems, the challenge to enhance
performance and quality of service is getting higher, leading
many researchers to focus on optimization Cloud Computing
elements like load balancing [4].
Load Balancing strives to distribute the load in equal
and online proportions across resources depending on recourse capacity so
growth that each resource is not overload or underutilized in a cloud
system [4]. Moreover, it is considered to be a NP-hard
on dynamic
optimization problem [5] that has 2 types: dynamic load
intelligent
balancing and Static load balancing. Dynamic load balancing is
to rebalance the system while running when detecting
overloaded VMs while static load balancing is to balance the
system from the start by scheduling. Static load balancing is
preferable as it avoids VM migration costs and provides better
execution time and quality of service (QoS) [2].
To work on Load Balancing, traditional algorithms like
First Come First Serve (FCFS), Round Robin (RR), Random
Swarm
Allocation (RA), Shortest Job First (SJF) and Longest Job First
(LJF) aren't sufficient and the meta-heuristic algorithms like
Evolutionary Algorithms and Swarm Intelligent Algorithms
were explored. Additionally, Swarm Intelligent Algorithms are
known for their self organizing properties thus can work well
in a dynamic scalable environment like cloud systems [1, 6].
Moreover, As New Swarm Intelligent Algorithms emerge like
Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), Firefly Algorithm (FA) and Ant
Lion optimizer (ALO), so is the need to explore these
Algorithms in cloud computing depending on No Free Lunch
theorem [7].
The rest of paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents
a survey of the related work in Load balancing, While Section
3 the surveyed algorithms is displayed further, In Section 4 the
details of the ALO Algorithm is explained, Section 5 shows the
proposed work that utilizes the ALO algorithm, and Section 6
illustrates the conclusion and future work.
II. RELATED WORK
Load Balancing is one of the main issues in cloud
computing, as it enhances system response time, power
consumption and utilizes resources efficiently. Many
traditional algorithms have been used to optimize the load

210
 20J 5 iEEE Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICiCIS 'J 5)

balancing for task scheduling. FCFS, RR, RA, SJF and LJF are
examples of these traditional algorithms. These algorithms To enhance Load balancing, researches inspected Artificial
heavily cause the overloading virtual machines (VM) problem, Bee Colony (ABC). ABC depend on 3 types of bees,
which in tum needs a VM migration process as a solution. employed, onlooker and Scout bees to reach optimum food
They may be fast at scheduling but they don't utilize resources sources. The employed bees randomly search for food source
efficiently, the tasks take a long time and it is tough to handle then onlooker bees work on the best of food sources. After a
the dynamic behavior and scalability of cloud computing. while scout bees explore new area in search space. In[l]
Accordingly, many intelligent algorithms have been devoted proposed a task Scheduler based on ABC. However, [11]
such as GA, ACO, ABC and PSO. proposed an improved ABC-based Algorithm called PS-ABC,
which minimize the power consumption and maximize the
Earlier researches have approached Genetic Algorithms performance in VM migration. According to [6] and upon
(GA) for its simplicity in solving optimization problems like comparison ABC results in [1] to ACO in [10], ABC gives
load balancing. The Algorithm depends on Evolutionary better performance than ACO. Also according to the work in
mechanisms. It implements filtration of popUlation by [1, 11, 6] and [12], ABC performs better than GA but suffers
removing the weak individuals and adding new ones created from replication and network overhead.
from crossing over or mutation for the strong individuals. It
was used for a Task Scheduler in [4] and VM Scheduler in [8]. Other researches worked with Particle Swarm Optimization
The work done in [4, 8, 9] indicates that GA gives better (PSO). PSO depends on random movement of particles. In
performance than traditional algorithms. However, it is each iteration, the best position for each particle is saved and
outperformed by other swarm intelligent Algorithms as the best particle is chosen. The algorithm is simple thus is fast
Artificial Bee Colony in [6] and Particle Swarm Optimization and has no network overhead, although it falls for local optima.
in [2] and [7]. To enhance its flaw, work in [5] used an Improved PSO for
task scheduling for minimizing the execution time. Moreover,
Many researchers explored swarm intelligent Algorithms in [13] a mix of PSO and CS (Cuckoo Search) in Task
like Ant Colony Optimization (ACO). The ACO uses ants to Scheduling is proposed, however, it works on homogenous
search for food source randomly, they lay pheromones on path; VMs only. In [2] authors use PSO only to reschedule the extra
the path with highest pheromones is best solution. Using ACO tasks of the overloaded VMs instead of the entire VM
in [10] shows that ACO performs better than GA in [4] by migration. In [14], they summarize the modified algorithms of
comparing both to FCFS, but it suffers from network overhead PSO and introduce an IPSO using Mutation and crossover
and may fall into local optima. However, work in [6] shows mechanisms. The Modifications perform better than PSO, but
that ACO and GA mixed with other Algorithm performance many researches still inspect other Algorithms for better load
nearly equal on the four different network topologies. balancing either static or dynamic.
The work done by these four intelligent algorithms is
TABLE! WORK IN LOAD BALANCING demonstrated further in Table I.
Method Objective Advantages disadvantages
Hybrid task
Need to explore the scheduling
Scheduling PSO It performance better than
Reduce Makespan algorithm with larger Scale in
with cuckoo search in ordinary PSO
cloud computing.
[13]
Artificial Bee Colony
Efficient with scalability ,
with Longest Job Network overhead and need to
Reduce Makespan performance better than SJF,
First Scheduling in explore heterogeneous tasks.
LSF, FCFS and ACO
[1]
Dynamic Load Balancing by
Extra tasks Better solution to VM migration,
moving tasks form overloaded Falling for PSO problems like
Scheduling using give better performance than
VMs by minimizing execution local optima.
PS. In [2] GA.
and transfer time
Trade off between power saving
Hybrid of Bayes Maximize performance and Gives better performance than
and performance may lead to
theorem - ABC for minimize power consumption RA and GA in Migration and
penalty cost due to SLA
VM scheduler in [11] in VM migration power consumption
violation.
better avoidance of local optima
Improved PSO task
Minimize the response time than PSO and give better results Lack of reliability
Scheduler in [5]
than GA and PSO
ACO Task Scheduler The makespan is better than ACO overhead and falling for
Minimizing execution time
in [10] FCFS and RR local optima
Gives better performance and
may fall in local optima also
GA Task Scheduler QoS than FCFS, RR and
Minimizing the makespan ACO and ABC performance
in [4] Stochastic Hill Climbing in
better
various cloud systems.
Cost effective and better
Minimize or avoid self-
GA VM resources utilization than Least-load Need to check on a large scale to
adapting distribution of load
Scheduler in [8] scheduling and Rotating load balance.
by VM migration 2 scheduling

211
 20J 5 iEEE Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICiCIS 'J 5)
III. INTELLIGENT OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS
This section will further present each of the intelligent
algorithms from GA, ACO to ABC and PSO that was
mentioned in the related work section, and their functionality to
achieve optimization.
A. Genetic Algorithms
The core of GA is the generation of offspring using
mutation and crossover methods, with the knowledge that these
methods depend on the type of the chromosomes either binary
coding, tree coding or numeric coding. Accordingly, the
crossover method is to exchange parts of two parents to
generate two better children using one or two crossover points,
uniform, arithmetic, or heuristic crossover depending on
coding. While the mutation method is performed after the
crossover to change part of a parent to create an offspring as it
increases the likelihood to avoid local optima. The GA is
described better in its pseudo code in Fig. 1.
Initialize the population of n chromosomes randomly. (Each
chromosome, consist of randomly assigned each task in the list
to a VM)
While (the end criterion is not satisfied)
Calculate the fitness of each chromosome.
Select the good population for generation of new
children.
DO cross over operations on selected chromosomes.
Mutate the new children with specific mutation
probability.
Update the population with the new children to form
the new population and remove the weak ones
End while
Return the best chromosome of the final population
Fig. I.The pseudo code of GA
B. Ant Colony Optimization
From the main instruments in ACO to determine optimal
solution, is the pheromone matrix which presents the number
of ants that passes through trails, the trail with high pheromone
represent the optimal solution [10, 6]. Each trail gets updated
by two parameters the evaporation factor and the ants passing
using:
Where, tij (l) is the trail value in iteration I, 8 is the
evaporation factor that has value in the range of [0, 1] and f::, tij
is summation of each ant effects in iteration I on the trail. Other
important factor in ACO is the updating of ants solution by
applying:
(t .. )a * ( n . . )f3
p.k = !) 'II} ,if j E Mk (2)
!} LXEMk(tij)a * (rJij)f3
212
Where TJ ij is a heuristic value, a and P determine the
influence of the pheromone trail and the heuristic information,
M k is the set of allowed nodes to visit. The pseudo code of
ACO is perceived in Fig. 2.
Initialize pheromone matrix with constant
While (the end criterion is not satisfied)
Initialize n ants randomly to possible starting point of
solutions
For every ant;
Update the solution represented by each ant on
the basis of the pheromone matrix using Eq.2.
End for
For every trail
Update local pheromone trail changes from ants
Update global pheromone trail using Eq.l.
End for
Update best Solution if the ant solution with the highest
pheromone is better
End while
Return best Solution
Fig. 2.The pseudo code of ACO
C. Artificial Bee Colony
As previously mentioned in Section 2, ABC Algorithm
consists of 3 types of bees looking for best food source which
is the solution to the optimization problem. From the 3 types of
bees, Scout bees explore new parts of the search area by
randomly assigning food source within search space
boundaries using:
FSi = Min + R (Max - Min) (3)
Where FSjis the food source, R is a random number
between [0, 1], Min and Max are the search space boundaries,
while the employed bees randomly search for another food
source for better fitness using:
AFSj = FSj + <p (FSj - FSk) (4)
Where AFSj is alternate food source, FSk is the neighbor
food source and <p is random number between [-1, 1].
Meanwhile the last type of bees, the onlooker, works on the
food sources from employed bees, then the food source with
best fitness is selected. The details of ABC are further
presented in Fig. 3.
Initialize the population of n food sources randomly, by scout
bees using Eq.3.
Calculate the fitness of each food source.
While (the end criterion is not satisfied)
 20J 5 iEEE Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICiCIS 'J 5)

IlIN Employed bees phase IF pbestj is better than gbest

For i =1 to n Update gbest
Get random neighbor food source End for
Get Alternate food source using Eq. 4. End while
Calculate its fitness. Return gbest
IF new fitness is better than food source i fitness
Fig. 4.The pseudo code of PSO
Update food source i.
End for
IIIN Onlooker bees phase Nowadays, many new optimization algorithms is emerging
For i =1 to n that can be able to solve load balancing such as ALO algorithm
Get random food source j and random neighbor which is illustrated in the following section.
food source
IV. THE ANT LION OPTIMIZER
Get Alternate food source using Eq.4.
Calculate its fitness. Ant Lion Optimizer (ALO) [7] is a new proposed swarm
IF new fitness is better than food source j fitness intelligent Algorithm for solving optimization problems. Upon
Update food source j. its results in [7], ALO shows higher exploration and
End for exploitation for the search space that tends to avoid local
Select best food source of onlooker bees. optima than other algorithms. Results also show that large scale
Scout some new food sources by scout bees. and changeling search space can be handled.
End while
Return best food source of onlooker bees ALO depends on creating Random Walk of an ant; and
Fig. 3.The pseudo code of ABC scales it within the boundaries of an ant lionj. Any Random
walk on n number of iterations is calculated by adding either a
step forward or backward randomly for each iteration, using
D. Particle Swarm Optimization
the following equations.
The PSO algorithm is widely researched for its simplicity
and good performance in reaching solutions. Its work RWj = [RWj\ ... RWr, ... RWt] (7)
mechanism is to calculate particle movements to new possible
such that RWr = RWr-1 1 ,RWjl = 0,
solutions by relying hugely on the following equation of
n is the number of iterations,RWj random walk of antj
velocity [5, 13]:
Vj (t + 1) = W (t) Vj (t) + <p1 r1 (pbestj - Xj (t)) To use the walk in kth iteration, it should firstly be
+ <p2 r2 (gbest - Xj (t)). (5) normalized by equation 8:

Where t is the iteration number, Wet) is the inertia weight

of iteration t. Also, pbestj and gbest are the best position of
particle; and the global best position of all particles
respectively. Moreover, r1 and r2 are random numbers in [0,
1] associated with <p1 and <p2. Where <p1 is the learning factor
and <p2 is the social factor, that satisfies the condition <p1 +
<p2 4. From the velocity equation, the position is updated
using:
(8)
Where a is the min value in RWj; b is the max value in
RWj
Every Search Space has boundaries to look for solutions
within. In ALO these boundaries decrease gradually in each
iteration using the following equation:

The mechanism of PSO is explicitly described in Fig. 4. LB UB

LBk = UBk = (9)
0 ' 0
-' -

Initializethe position and velocity of n particles randomly.

(For position of particle, randomly assign each task in list to a where LB is the initial lower bound, LBk is the lower bound in
VM) kthiteration, UB is the initial Upper bound, UBk is the upper
Calculate the fitness of each particle and put it aspbestj.
bound in kthiteration and 0 is the decreasing factor dependant
Put the best pbestj as thegbest . on iteration number.
While (the end criterion is not satisfied)
Update the inertia weight Wet) Based on the bounds for the kth search space, ant lionj bounds
For every particle i can be calculated as shown in Eq.(10):
Update the velocity and position using Eqs.5&6.
Calculate its fitness.
IF position fitness is better than pbestj
Update pbestj

213
 20J 5 iEEE Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICiCIS 'J 5)

Where LBf is the lower bound around ant lionj and ALj is the storage, software, infrastructure and software development.
position of ant lionj. Many software applications have been used on daily basis even
by regular users, such as Google Apps and Microsoft office
In each iteration, the ALO algorithm calculates the new 365. Thus it is essential to enhance the cloud computing
position of anti by the average of its scaled random walks performance and reliability continuously. One of the key points
towards the corresponding ant lionj and towards the elite ant of performance is load balancing. A load balance in cloud
lion, that is responsible for the best solution in this iteration, computing saves time as it overcomes the overloading of the
using equation (II). VMs, utilizes the resources efficiently and provides the users
with better quality of services. Accordingly, Researchers
Anti explored many algorithms for load balancing from traditional
k k )(UBk - LBk) + LBk LBk (e.g. FCFS) to heuristic (e.g. RR, min-min) and Meta heuristic
_ (NRW.!,] + NRW!,e ]
+ e
(11 ) (e.g. GA, PSO). Hence, as shown in Fig. 6, the ALO is utilized
2 in the task scheduling phase to manipulate scheduling problem
through VMs in cloud environment.
Where NRWi is the normalized random walk of anti
towards the selected ant lionj. Moreover, NRWie is the As represented in Fig. 6, it obtains 3 phases: task sending,
normalized random walk of anti towards the elite ant lion. The scheduler and VM processing. Every cloud user submits tasks
algorithm ALO can be described further in Fig. 5. through the net by any device. The tasks will go to the task
scheduler, which in turn utilizes the ALO, to be assigned to the
appropriate VMs then, after processing, the results return back
to the users.
Initialize the position of n ants and n ant lions randomly,
where n is number of search agents. In task sending phase, each user can produce any number of
Calculate the fitness of ant lions. tasks form any device. Every task has different number of
Find the best fit ant lion and assume it as the elite. instructions, data size and location. Users send tasks to the
While (the end criterion is not satisfied) cloud system as input to the task scheduler.
Update search boundaries LB, UB using Eq.(9)
For every ant The Task Scheduler phase considered as the key to the load
Select an ant lion using Roulette wheel on balancing, ALO will handle task scheduling using cost function
ant lion fitness. that depends on minimizing the makespan and the task total
Create normalized random walk towards time, so it is calculated as follows:
selected ant lion and elite using Eq. (7) and
Eq. (8) Minimize ( Max(FT), TT )
k
(12)
Update the position of ant using Eq. (11)
Calculate ant fitness. Where Max(FT) is the makespan that is calculated by the
End for following equations:
Max(FT) (13)
Replace an ant lion position with its corresponding itij = iti-lj + PTi
ant position it if becomes fitter PTi = NITi x V MSj
Update elite if an ant lion becomes fitter than the elite
End while
FT is a matrix mxn of the tasks' finishing time , ft i j is the
Return Elite
finishing time of task i in VM j ,PTi is the processing time of
taski, NITi is the number of instructions of taski' VMSj is the
Fig. 5.The pseudo code of ALO
speed of VMj.
V. PROPOSED WORK

Cloud computing has offered many online services like

o task

Task Scheduler- (ALO)

Fig.6. System Model

 20J 5 iEEE Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICiCIS 'J 5)

Moreover, TTk is the total time, which IS calculated using

equation (14):
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

(14) This paper firstly surveys the load balancing problem in

cloud computing based on intelligent optimizing techniques. It
where TTk is the total time of task k, PTk is the processing gives a concise explanation of the frequently used algorithms,
time of task k and STk is sending time of task k to a VM. such as GA, ACO, ABC, and PSO. Such algorithms show a
better performance than traditional ones regarding the quality
of service, minimizing response time and minimizing the
The Steps of the proposed Task scheduler will be:
makespan issues. However, they suffer of network overhead
and local optima problems, which in turn lead to delaying both
Step 1: Organize tasks in task list.
the tasks assigning process and the processing time of tasks,
Step 2: Use ALO to find the best VMs assignment upon the
and afford an inefficient usage of resources. Accordingly, the
cost function in Eq. (12).
paper proposes a new load balance technique that utilizes the
Step 3: Send tasks to the chosen VMs.
ALO algorithm in Task scheduling. The proposed algorithm
Step 4: IF new tasks come, add it to task list and go to Step 1.
shows good promise in performance in the small simulation
rounds against RR. Moreover, in comparison to other
The VM processing phase begin when the task scheduler
optimizing intelligent algorithms, it is expected to have high
outputs the optimum VM to process the task dependant on task
exploration of a search space, and to handle large and diverse
needs, where each host has a number of VMs do the processing
search space such as a dynamic scalable environment like
of tasks and each VM take different memory size and
cloud computing.
processing power form the host.
For future work the proposed algorithm is needed to be
Using CloudSim simulator, ALO has been implemented on
experimented in different scales of cloud systems and compare
a small scale simulation of 10 tasks of different sizes and 5
its results to surveyed intelligent algorithms.
VMs of different capacities using processing time as cost
function. Based on the simulator environment, the ALO
scheduler results are showed in Fig. 7.
REFERENCES

Avgerage : 3065.6 & minmum : 2605 [I] B. K ruekaew and W. Kimpan, "Virtual Machine Scheduling
(ms) Management on Cloud Computing Using Artificial Bee Colony,"
4500 Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and
Computer Scientists ,vol. 1,2014.
4000
[2] F. Ramezani, J. Lu, and F. K. Hussain, "Task-Based System Load
3500
Balancing in Cloud Computing Using Particle Swarm Optimization," Int
3000 J Parallel Prog International Journal of Parallel Programming, vol. 42,
2500 no. 5,pp. 739-754,2013.

2000 [3] M. Rouse, "What is cloud computing? - Definition from WhatTs.com,"

SearchCloudComputing,2015. .
1500
[4] K. Dasgupta, B. Mandai, P. Dutta, J. K. Mandai, and S. Dam, "A
1000 Genetic Algorithm (GA) based Load Balancing Strategy for Cloud
500 Computing," International Conference on Computational Intelligence
Modeling Techniques and Applications,vol. 10,pp. 340-347,2013.
o
[5] H. Yuan, C. Li, and M. Du, "Optimal Virtual Machine Resources
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Scheduling Based on Improved Particle Swarm Optimization in Cloud
Run Computing," JSW Journal of Software,vol. 9,no. 3,pp. 705-708,2014.
[6] V. Seum-Cavi6 and E. Kuhn, "Chapter 8 Self-Organized Load
Balancing through Swarm Intelligence," in Next Generation Data
Total processing time in (ms)
Technologies for Collective Computational Intelligence, vol. 352, N.
Fig.7. ALO Simulation Run Bessis and F. Xhafa ,Eds. Heidelberg,Berlin: Springer,2011,pp. 195-
224.
[7] S. Mirjalili, 'The Ant Lion Optimizer," Advances in Engineering
In which, simulator results are compared with RR Total
Software,vol. 83,no. 0965-9978,pp. 80-98,May 2015.
processing time of the 10 tasks, Fig.7 contains the ALO's total
[8] J. Gu, J. Hu, T. Zhao, and G. Sun, "A New Resource Scheduling
processing time of the tasks in 10 different rounds. The results Strategy Based on Genetic Algorithm in Cloud Computing
shows that the provided simulator achieves a better minimum Environment," JCP Journal of Computers,vol. 7,no. 1,pp. 42-52,2012.
time (MIN=2605) and a better average time (AVG=3065.6 ms) [9] S. Singh and M. Kalra, "Task Scheduling Optimization Of Independent
when compared with the RR time (RR_time=3088 ms). Tasks In Cloud Computing Using Enhanced Genetic Algorithm,"
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering &
Management,vol. 3,no. 7,pp. 286-291,2014.
[10] M. A. Tawfeek, A. EI-Sisi, A. E. Keshk, and F. A. Torkey, "Cloud task
scheduling based on ant colony optimization," 2013 8th International

215
 20J 5 iEEE Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICiCIS 'J 5)
Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems (ICCES), vol. 12, no.
2,pp. 64--69,2015.
[II] G. Xu, Y. Ding, J. Zhao, L. Hu, and X. Fu, "A Novel Artificial Bee
Colony Approach of Live Virtual Machine Migration Policy Using
Bayes Theorem," The Scientific World Journal,pp. 1-13,2013.
[12] U.Singal and S. jain, "An Analysis of Swarm Intelligence based Load
Balancing Algorithms in a Cloud Computing Environment,"
International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology, vol. 8, no. I,
pp. 249-256,2015.
[13] A. Al - maamari and FA Omara, "Task Scheduling using Hybrid
Algorithm in Cloud Computing Environments," IOSR Journal of
Computer Engineering,vol. 17,no. 3,pp. 96-106,2015.
[14] G. Kaur and S. Sharma, "Research Paper on Optimized Utilization of
Resources Using PSO and Improved Particle Swarm Optimization
(IPSO) Algorithms in Cloud Computing," International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Science & Technology (IJARCST
2014),vol. 2,no. 3,2014.
216