Advances, Systems and Applications
Table 4 Comparison of Multiple VM migration approaches
From: A critical survey of live virtual machine migration techniques
Approach | Objective | Technique | Performance metrics | Hypervisor /Simulator |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ye et al. [83]-2011 | Focus on different resource reservation method | Multiple VM migration with resource reservation & parallel migration strategy and workload-aware migration strategy | Downtime, total migration time, and workload performance overheads | Xen 3.3.1 |
Deshpande et al. [84]-2011 | Live gang migration | De-duplication based approach to perform concurrent live migration of co-located VM’s | Reduce the total migration time and network traffic overhead | KVM/ QEMU 0.12.3 |
Lu et al. [85]-2014 | Reduce the latency over low network bandwidth and WAN network | Investigate the usefulness of two classic algorithms, min-cut and k-means clustering, in determining which VM’s should be co-migrated | Imrove both total migration time and network traffic | QEMU/ KVM 2.6.32 |
Lu et al. [86]-2015 | Optimal scheduling of multi-tier VM | vHaul control multi-VM migrations to figure out the optimal scheduling | Minimize service downtime by 70% and improve application throughput by 52% | Xen 4.1.2 |
Forsman et al. [88]-2015 | Balance the load | Present two strategies (push and pull) to balance the load in a system with multiple VM’s through automated live migration | Achieve a load-balanced system in 4-15 minute | OMNeT ++ v4.3 |
Sun et al. [90]-2016 | Focus on multiple VM migration problem | Proposed serial migration strategy, m mixed migration strategy and develop queuing models | Analysis performance metrics like average waiting time, blocking ratio, average waiting queue length, and average queue length of each migration request | Xen and KVM |