skip to main content
10.1145/2287036.2287040acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshpdcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Middleware alternatives for storm surge predictions in Windows Azure

Published:18 June 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cloud computing is a resource of significant value to computational science, but has proven itself to be not immediately realizable by the researcher. The cloud providers that offer a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) platform should, in theory, offer a sound alternative to infrastructure-as-a-service as it could be easier to take advantage of for computational science kinds of problems. The objective of our study is to assess how well the Azure platform as a service can serve a particular class of computational science application. We conduct a performance evaluation using three approaches to executing a high-throughput storm surge application: using Sigiri, a large scale resource abstraction tool, Windows Azure HPC scheduler, and Daytona, an Iterative Map-reduce runtime for Azure. The differences in the approaches including early performance measures for up to 500 instances are discussed.

References

  1. R. Barga, J. Jackson, N. Araujo, D. Guo, N. Gautam, and Y. Simmhan. The Trident scientific workflow workbench. IEEE International Conference on eScience, 0:317--318, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Daytona iterative map-reduce framework. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/daytona/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. de Oliveira, E. Ogasawara, F. BaiaÌCo, and M. Mattoso. Scicumulus: A lightweight cloud middleware to explore many task computing paradigm in scientific workflows. In 2010 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing. IEEE, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. B. Glahn, A. Taylor, N. Kurkowski, and W. Shaffer. The Role of the SLOSH Model In National Weather Service Storm Surge Forecasting. National Weather Digest, 33(1):3--14, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. C. A. Goble and D. C. De Roure. myexperiment: social networking for workflow-using e-scientists. In WORKS '07: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Workflows in support of large-scale science, pages 1--2, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. T. Gunarathne, T.-L. Wu, and G. J.Qiu. Cloud Computing Paradigms for Pleasingly Parallel Biomedical Applications. In HPDC, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Jensen and B. Plale. Trading consistency for scalability in scientific metadata. In 6th International IEEE Conference on e-Science, pages 292--299. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J. Li, D. Agarwal, M. Humphrey, C. van Ingen, K. Jackson, and Y. Ryu. eScience in the Cloud: A MODIS Satellite Data Reprojection and Reduction Pipeline in the Windows Azure Platform. In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS 2010). IEEE, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. W. Lu, J. Jackson, and R. Barga. Azureblast: a case study of developing science applications on the cloud. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, HPDC '10, pages 413--420, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. W. Lu, J. Jackson, J. Ekanayake, R. S. Barga, and N. Araujo. Performing large science experiments on azure: Pitfalls and solutions. In CloudCom, pages 209--217, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Azure hpc scheduler. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/hh545593.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. What's new in windows azure. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/gg441573.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. NOAA SLOSH display program. http://slosh.nws.noaa.gov/sloshPub/\#sloshDsp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Pandey, D. Karunamoorthy, and R. Buyya. Workflow Engine for Clouds. In Cloud Computing, Principles and Paradigms, Wiley Series on Parallel and Distributed Computing, pages 321--344, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. B. Plale, E. C. Withana, C. Herath, K. Chandrasekar, and Y. Luo. Effectiveness of hybrid workflow systems for computational science. In International Conf on Computational Science (ICCS). To appear Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Y. Simmhan, R. Barga, C. V. Ingen, E. Lazowska, and A. Szalay. On Building Scientific Workflow Systems for Data Management in the Cloud. In Fourth IEEE International Conference on eScience. IEEE, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Windows azure queue. https://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/home/tour/storage/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. E. C. Withana and B. Plale. Sigiri: Uniform research abstraction for grids and clouds. To appear Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience; Early view to DOI: 10.1002/cpe.2823 Feb 2012, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Middleware alternatives for storm surge predictions in Windows Azure

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        ScienceCloud '12: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on Scientific Cloud Computing
        June 2012
        80 pages
        ISBN:9781450313407
        DOI:10.1145/2287036

        Copyright © 2012 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 June 2012

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate44of151submissions,29%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader