 Research
 Open access
 Published:
VTGAN: hybrid generative adversarial networks for cloud workload prediction
Journal of Cloud Computing volume 12, Article number: 97 (2023)
Abstract
Efficient resource management approaches have become a fundamental challenge for distributed systems, especially dynamic environment systems such as cloud computing data centers. These approaches aim at loadbalancing or minimizing power consumption. Due to the highly dynamic nature of cloud workloads, traditional time series and machine learning models fail to achieve accurate predictions. In this paper, we propose novel hybrid VTGAN models. Our proposed models not only aim at predicting future workloads but also predicting the workload trend (i.e., the upward or downward direction of the workload). Trend classification could be less complex during the decisionmaking process in resource management approaches. Also, we study the effect of changing the sliding window size and the number of prediction steps. In addition, we investigate the impact of enhancing the features used for training using the technical indicators, Fourier transforms, and wavelet transforms. We validate our models using a real cloud workload dataset. Our results show that VTGAN models outperform traditional deep learning and hybrid models, such as LSTM/GRU and CNNLSTM/GRU, concerning cloud workload prediction and trend classification. Our proposed model records an upward prediction accuracy ranging from \(95.4\%\) to \(96.6\%\).
Introduction
Recently, there has been a pronounced tendency towards using individual virtual servers in largescale cloud data centers with thousands of highperformance servers. For instance, cloud services provide elastic computing advantages to end users based on virtualization technology at a lowcost [16, 68]. Virtual machine (VM) facilities allow cloud end users to scale up/down or relinquish their resource demands (e.g., CPUs/GPUs, memory, storage, \(\cdots\), etc.) and pay accordingly. Such frequent variations in the dynamic environment lead to a tradeoff between the service provider’s profit and the end user’s quality of service (QoS). More specifically, the underutilized server causes resource and power consumption wastage. On the other hand, the overutilized server causes performance degradation. Consequently, service providers need efficient techniques for optimal resource management [33, 68]. Managing and improving the provided services in such distributed systems cause several challenges. One major challenge is observing and monitoring these distributed systems for accurate resource allocation decisions [58]. In particular, observability has become a critical prerequisite to guarantee stable services for enduser applications and maximize the profit for the service provider.
In general, there are two approaches for resource allocation: reactive and proactive [77]. The reactive approach offloads the required resources from overutilized servers to underutilized servers. The offloading decisions, in this case, rely on the current enduser utilization. Nevertheless, this causes unnecessary migration because of the sharp workload peaks. Hence, researchers exert continuous effort to improve the accuracy of proactive resource allocation techniques, where deciding VM migration depends on future workloads [71]. Most researchers focus on predicting CPU utilization for the servers [24, 54], or individual VMs [55]. The motivation for focusing on CPU utilization stems from the fact that the CPU of a server incurs the most power consumption, and the relationship between energy consumption and CPU utilization is linear [15].
Focusing on the proactive resource allocation approaches, we need an accurate forecasting technique. To that end, classical timeseries techniques aim to model shortterm forecasts. As the CPU utilization data is considered time series data, The ARIMA models have been widely used for CPU utilization time series forecasting [57]. For example, researchers have used ARIMA models as a baseline to compare more sophisticated techniques [41]. The main drawback of the time series forecasting model is that it merely captures linear relationships. In addition, TS models require the input data to be stationary (whether in its raw form or as differenced data). Unfortunately, authors in [55] performed the popular KwiatkowskiPhillipsSchmidtShin (KPSS) stationarity test for each VM [40]. They concluded that almost 70% of tested PlanetLab VMs [60] are not stationary. Consequently, classical TS models cannot accurately predict its future CPU utilization. As a result, they used machine learning (ML) models to predict the CPU utilization using lagged values of each time series as inputs to the model. Hence, in recent years many machine learning models, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) [55, 66, 67], and support vector machine (SVM) [6, 37, 55], have been proposed for modeling CPU utilization.
Deep learning (DL) methods have stirred remarkable attention during the artificial intelligence revolution in recent years. Deeplearningbased prediction models outperform traditional machine learning models in several applications, especially cloud workloads prediction [48]. Thus, the accuracy of CPU utilization prediction could increase using a recurrent neural network (RNN), which maps target vectors from the history of the previous inputs. Nevertheless, RNN suffers from the gradient vanishing problem with long sequences [57]. The long shortterm memory (LSTM), which Hochreiter and Schmidhuber [35] proposed, is an effective solution to overcome the gradient vanishing problem. LSTM achieves a considerable improvement in capturing longterm temporal dependencies. Thus, LSTM can accurately predict high fluctuated timeseries data [59, 76]. Recently, the generative adversarial network (GAN), proposed by Goodfellow [30], achieves remarkable improvements in different research areas. In particular, GANs are used for the prediction of highly volatile cloud traces as in [85]. This motivates our interest in investigating the performance of GANs for workload prediction. GANs employ two deep learning networks, namely, the generator and the discriminator. The generator generates artificial data samples that mimic the actual distribution of the actual data distribution. The discriminator, however, tries to differentiate between the actual data samples and the artificially generated samples by the generator. By providing a feedback signal from the discriminator to the generator, the generator enhances its data generation model.
Moreover, many research works concerning forecasting investigated the problem of selecting technical indicators (TIs) as input of machine learning/deep learning models for extracting more features [74]. Many efforts study the determination of the optimal combinations of TIs or their parameters.
The main challenge in cloud prediction is the need for an effective nonlinear model that tracks the cloud workload [45, 79]. Furthermore, the workload value frequently suffers from excessive changes [62]. This motivates our interest in recasting the overutilized server detection problem into a workload trend prediction rather than the value. In other words, the system will migrate VMs from overutilized servers if the future workload trend is “up” only. We inspire this idea from stock price prediction, where researchers in this area demonstrated that trend prediction as a classification problem can improve prediction accuracy using machine learning and deep learning models [23, 70].
Therefore, the principal contribution of this paper is proposing a novel nonlinear prediction model, named value trend generative adversarial network (VTGAN), to deal with the highfrequency and volatility of cloud workload. Additionally, this paper presents a novel classification approach to predict the trend of workload data. In our proposed VTGAN prediction model, we used a GAN in which the long shortterm memory (LSTM) or the gated recurrent units (GRU) model is a generator, and the convolution neural network (CNN) model is a discriminator. The proposed system presents subsequent research contributions:

We use GAN models for building predicting cloud workloads models. Moreover, GANs were not applied before in cloud data centers, whether a simulation or real environment, making our model one of the pioneers in cloud workload prediction.

In addition, we compared the results of the proposed models with stateoftheart time series, ML, and DL models, such as ARIMA, SVR, LSTM, and GRU.

We propose a classification approach to predict the trend instead of the value of the cloud workload.

We study the effect of using common technical indicators.

We also study and test the window input size and multistep prediction using our model.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section “Related work” presents the related work. Section “Proposed architecture” introduces the mathematical model. Section “Experimental configuration and evaluation methodology” shows the experimental setup and the methodology of the evaluation conducted in this work. Section “Results and discussions” analyzes the performance results. Section “Conclusions and future works” summarizes our concluding remarks.
Related work
During the last decade, machine learning and deep learning approaches have revolutionized the scientific and industrial communities. In the sequel, we focus on enumerating research works concerning the timeseries prediction area. Figure 1 illustrates a taxonomy of timeseries prediction models. Classically, most works deal with workload forecasting as a value prediction problem (a.k.a. regression). We classify the regression models into four main categories: (i) Traditional time series models, (ii) Machine Learning models, (iii) Deep learning models, and (iv) Hybrid Techniques. Nevertheless, in this work, we will introduce a trend prediction approach (a.k.a. classification), where we focus on predicting the sign of workload change.
Traditional time series approaches
As cloud workload data is naturally temporal, researchers used different timeseries forecasting models for predicting workload traces. Autoregressive moving average (ARMA), as a traditional timeseries forecasting model, is used in [17] to predict cloud workload for resource allocation. Authors reported that this approach is unsuitable for most cloud workload traces, particularly for highlyvolatile workloads. Also, Vazquez et al. [81] applied several timeseries prediction models, such as AR, MA, simple exponential smoothing (SES), double exponential smoothing (DES), error trend seasonal exponential smoothing (ETS), and ARIMA, to forecast cloud workloads. They evaluated the forecasting accuracy for each model for two real cloud workloads, namely, Google cluster data and Intel Netbatch logs. The authors conclude that no model is consistently superior to the others for all datasets.
Vashistha and Verma [80] presented a cloud workload prediction survey based on time series models, where some researchers applied AR [37,38,39, 46], MA [37, 38, 81], and ARIMA [7, 17, 18, 28, 38, 46, 81]. In addition, other researchers proposed extended versions of the ARIMA model for workload prediction, such as autoregressive moving average with exogenous inputs (ARMAX) [88], cumulative moving average (CMA), weighted moving average (WMA) [29], difference model (DM), and median model (MM) [38].
Although such traditional timeseries approaches were ubiquitous in the last decade, these models are not appropriate for longterm timeseries data [47]. Moreover, these models assume that the input data is stationary, which is not a valid assumption for most cloud workload traces [55]. Therefore, the ML approaches seem like a natural solution for traditional timeseries problems and a step toward more accurate cloud workload prediction results.
Machine learning approaches
ML models have been widely used as an alternative solution for traditional timeseries forecasting. Thus, researchers proposed several ML prediction models for cloud applications. Farahnakian et al. [25] proposed a linear regression (LR) algorithm to predict the CPU utilization of the servers in the context of proactive overload detection servers. In followup work, they used a Knearest neighbor (KNN) regression model instead of the linear regression model. They demonstrated that this approach is superior in terms of energy consumption and system performance [26].
Patel et al. [63] proposed the support vector regression (SVR) and ARIMA models to predict VM memory during the live migration to calculate the migration time. The SVR model has less capability to improve prediction accuracy because it consists of a single hidden layer. Cortez et al. [21] used gradient boosting tree and random forest models to predict the resource management of a VM allocated in the Azure cloud platform. They used the dynamically linked library (DLL) to collect the result after each estimation process. Then, it decided whether the prediction process was trusted using the DLL score.
Nguyen et al. [34] used a multiple linear regression (MLR) method to predict overutilized and underutilized servers. They integrated their prediction technique with traditional consolidation frameworks to reduce energy consumption.
Moghaddam et al. [55] proposed different ML algorithms for overload detection in the VM consolidation framework. They developed several ML prediction algorithms for individual VMs to predict the most suitable time for migration from overutilized servers. They implemented their approach using PlanetLab traces based on the CloudSim simulation tool [60]. Their framework was compared to LRMMTPBFD as a baseline in most publications. Nevertheless, they did not measure the prediction accuracy of the proposed ML models and implemented them directly on the VM consolidation framework. Thus, in this paper, we evaluate the accuracy of our approaches before integrating them with the whole system in future work.
Regardless of the reasonably fast prediction ability for cloud workloads, ML approaches do not achieve high prediction accuracy with high dispersal because of the nonlinearity and complexity of cloud workloads. Hence, the third direction was deep learning (DL) approaches to achieve high prediction accuracy.
Deep learning approaches
Due to the recent success of DL in various applications, several works employed DL approaches for timeseries analysis and prediction [27]. Specifically, the recurrent neural network (RNN) has outstanding sequential processing capabilities. Therefore, authors in [24, 36, 87] proposed an RNNbased model to predict the future workloads in cloud data centers. However, previous research showed that traditional RNNs struggle to capture longterm dependencies due to the vanishing gradient problem [14, 82]. To solve this issue, LSTM [31] and GRU [20] were developed for better dealing with longterm dependencies [19, 42]. Consequently, Song et al. [76] used the LSTM network for workload prediction to improve their previous RNNbased work [84]. GRU is much less computationally intensive than LSTM due to its ability to converge with fewer parameters [20]. Nevertheless, there is little research work based on GRU networks [19, 32] for workload prediction in the cloud environment.
Focusing on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), Mozo et al. [56] used CNN to predict shortterm network traffic in data centers. [56] is considered the only work using a pure CNN approach for prediction in the cloud environment because CNN is also unsuitable for longterm dependencies. That is because CNN models fundamentally focus on extracting features and interdependencies from the input sequence and do not use any historical data during the learning process [69].
The nature of cloud workloads is always dynamic and complex. Thus, all previous approaches did not achieve acceptable prediction accuracy due to the longterm dependencies, complexity, and nonlinearity of cloud workload traces. As a result, the authors recently tuned the research direction to hybrid approaches rather than single models.
Hybrid approaches
Finally, the hybrid approaches are an amalgamation of various timeseries algorithms aiming at forecasting complex time series traces [85]. Liu et al. [52] proposed a hybrid prediction model that combines ARIMA with LSTM models. Their results illustrated that their model improved the prediction accuracy by 6% and 66% compared to the pure LSTM and pure ARIMA models, respectively. Also, Shuvo et al. [73] proposed a hybrid prediction model, namely LSRU, that combined the GRU with the LSTM model. They show that LSRU achieves better accuracy than the pure LSTM or GRU model. Bi et al. [13] proposed a hybrid prediction model integrating bidirectional and gridlong shortterm memory networks (BGLSTM) for high accuracy.
The combination of ConvNets and LSTM is one of the popular hybrid schemes for time series prediction purposes [85]. Regarding cloud environments, Ouhame et al. [59] proposed a hybrid prediction model that combines CNN model with the LSTM model. This combination helps to extract complex features of the VM usage components. This is in addition to modeling temporal information of irregular trends, which may arise in the time series. Their results illustrated that this hybrid model is more accurate than VARMLP, VARGRU, and ARIMALSTM hybrid models.
Recently, the GAN invention revolutionized DL. It achieves remarkable improvement in several fields, such as computer vision and audio. Goodfellow et al. developed GANs in 2014 [30]. Until now, few works considered GAN for timeseries cloud workload prediction purposes. The first approach for cloud workload prediction value, E2LG, was proposed by Yazdanian and Sharifan [85]. They combined LSTM networks as a generator and CNNs as a discriminator. This hybrid model can effectively capture the longterm nonlinear dependencies of time series and is suitable for the highfrequency data type. E2LG improved prediction accuracy significantly in the cloud environment. Also, Lin et al. [51] proposed a GANbased method for realistic cloud workload generation to capture the data distribution and generate highquality workloads. Generated workloads are useful to mimic real data. In addition, their model can easily generate specific kinds of workloads according to the input. But, their model aimed to generate synthetic data that have a similar distribution to the real data. Unlike our approach, We aim to predict the near future utilization by considering the near historical data to deal with the unexpected change instantaneously.
Table 1 summarizes publications on previous cloud workload prediction approaches. These publications are classified according to their learning category, method, dataset, and weakness.
In this paper, we use a modified version of GAN to predict the trend rather than the value. Therefore, the decision of resource allocation will be based on the trend. This approach is a pioneer in cloud workload prediction. Also, we study the effect of using technical indicators (TIs), Fourier, and wavelet transforms in the performance of our regression and classification models.
Proposed architecture
We propose a modified version of GAN to predict future workload values. The proposed model is a step towards a proactive overload detection technique in the resource management framework for cloud data centers. This technique prevents unnecessary migrations by making migration decisions from the overutilized server based on the predicted CPU utilization value. In addition, we present an alternative solution to make the migration decision based on the future trend of the cloud workload. For this trend prediction, we cast the prediction problem as trend classification (in contrast to the regression problem corresponding to the workload value prediction).
In our suggested workload prediction system, we use a GAN network. In our proposed GAN architecture, the GRU or LSTM model represents a generator, which learns to generate workload values that are consistent with the statistical distribution of the actual workload. In addition, our GAN model includes a 1DCNN model as a discriminator, which learns to differentiate between actual and artificially generated workloads. Upon interaction between the generator and discriminator, the predicted workload accuracy enhances. The LSTM and GRU are suitable for predicting time series data. To further enhance the prediction accuracy in multistepahead prediction, our proposed system uses technical indicators (TIs) as feature extraction mechanisms. Moreover, we apply and test Fourier and wavelet transform functions as additional TIs that remove redundant data.
Data preprocessing
To improve the predictive performance of our model, we preprocess the data to highlight oscillations and trends in the workload trace. To that end, we study the use of seven technical indicators (TIs) as additional features. We note that the works [9] and [22] used a subset of these TIs. we extend some of the TIs in [43] to include shortterm and longterm moving averages (MAs). These MAs smooth the workload trace, discard shortterm fluctuations, and highlight overall trends and/or cycles of the workload time series. In the sequel, we enumerate the full list of our proposed TIs:

Moving averages (MAs): MAs often capture trends by smoothing a CPU utilization series using a lag factor of order n. The long MAs indicators illustrate changes in CPU utilization that are less sensitive to recent utilization movements than the short MAs. This is due to the fact that the longer the MA is, the smoother and less accurate the output is. We calculate MA by Eq. (1), where \(p_t\) is the CPU utilization value at time t.
$$\begin{aligned} MA(p_{t},n)=\frac{p_{t}+p_{t1}+\cdots +p_{t(n1)}}{n} =\frac{1}{n} \sum \limits _{i=0}^{n1} p_{ti} \end{aligned}$$(1) 
Exponential Moving Average (EMA): EMA is a particular moving average indicator, which exponentially averages historic CPU utilization. Unlike simple MAs, EMA can place more weight on recent CPU utilization. More specifically, the influence of previous CPU utilization samples decreases exponentially fast in the EMA indicator. Hence, it reflects directly on the immediate trend [22]. We calculate EMA according to (2),
$$\begin{aligned} EMA(p_{t},s)=\frac{p_{t}+\alpha p_{t1}+\cdots +\alpha ^{t} p_{0}}{1+\alpha +\cdots +\alpha ^{t}} \end{aligned}$$(2)where s is a tuning parameter to control the importance of the recent past, and \(\alpha\) is a weighting term (\(\alpha =\frac{s1}{s+1}\)).

Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD): It gives insight into workload convergence, divergence, and crossover [22]. It reflects the difference between a shortterm (fast) EMA and a longterm (slow) EMA, capturing the second derivative of a CPU utilization series. We calculate MACD according to (3),
$$\begin{aligned} MACD(p_{t},s_1,s_2)=EMA(p_{t},s_1)  EMA(p_{t},s_2), \quad s_2 > s_1 \end{aligned}$$(3) 
Moving Standard Deviation (MSD): MSD measures the nth time slot volatility (i.e., the rate of change) of CPU utilization. It is considered helpful in predicting the magnitude of future CPU utilization changes. This indicator expects lowvolatility periods followed by highvolatility periods. We calculate MSD according to (4),
$$\begin{aligned} MSD(p_{t},n)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{n} \sum \limits _{i=0}^{n1} (p_{ti}MA(p_{t},n))^2} \end{aligned}$$(4) 
Bollinger Bands (BBANDs): Bollinger Bands are indicators that are plotted at standard deviation levels above, and below a simple moving average. BBANDs consist of the upper band (\(BBAND^{+}\)) and the lower band (\(BBAND^{}\)) [22]. Bollinger Bands are useful indicators to compare volatility against relative CPU utilization levels, over a period of time. We calculate \(BBAND^{+}\) and \(BBAND^{}\) by Eqs. (5) and (6).
$$\begin{aligned} BBAND^{+}(p_{t},n)= & {} MA(p_{t},n)+2 \times MSD(p_{t},n) \end{aligned}$$(5)$$\begin{aligned} BBAND^{}(p_{t},n)= & {} MA(p_{t},n)2 \times MSD(p_{t},n) \end{aligned}$$(6) 
Momentum (MOM): MOM measures CPU utilization differences over relatively short periods to follow the speed of the changes in utilization. We used log momentum to center the values at zero. It is often used to predict reversals [9]. We calculate using (7) as,
$$\begin{aligned} MOM(p_{t},n)=\log (p_{t}p_{tn}) \end{aligned}$$(7)
In summary, the selected TIs have been plotted in Fig. 2 after being applied to the PlanetLab dataset (200time slots), which is described in Section “Dataset”.
Then, we study applying and testing Fourier and wavelet transforms as additional features, where Fourier and wavelet transforms are used to remove redundant data and retain the most relevant information [8]. Therefore, these approximation tools could help the deep learning network for predicting trends more accurately.
VTGAN models
We use the GAN network to predict the value and trend of future CPU utilization, i.e., to predict future samples of the time series corresponding to the CPU utilization. Figure 3 illustrates the essential components of the proposed VTGAN architecture. The generator produces CPU traces, which have a similar distribution compared to the original CPU traces. The discriminator, however, is responsible for classifying the input trace into either an actual CPU utilization trace or a predicted trace (i.e., an artificially generated CPU utilization trace). The generator and discriminator losses are added together and fed back to the generator to become better at generating CPU utilization traces that mimic the actual data statistics. This process continues until the discriminator no longer be able to differentiate between actual predicted data from generated CPU utilization data.
Some researchers recently reconstructed the generator and the discriminator based on LSTM and CNN layers for better learning regarding several applications. GAN differs from other deep learning techniques in that it tries to strike a balance between the two sides (generator and discriminator) [85].
Figure 4 illustrates the proposed system using the GAN model. In this work, we use an RNN as a generator. Specifically, we employ one of the following recurrent neural networks: (i) LSTM or (ii) GRU, for generating CPU traces. As described in Subsection “Deep learning approaches”, RNN has the ability to map generated data from the history of the previous inputs, therefore it is suitable for sequential data. For the discriminator, we utilize a multilayer 1DCNN. We choose CNN for the discriminator components as it is able to extract temporal features and information for series data. In the numerical result section, we compare the performance of the two RNNs and select the better generator network.
Regression and classification approaches
Generally, the main goal of forecasting CPU utilization as a timeseries forecasting problem is to estimate the closing value of the next time slot. In this work, we focus on CPU utilization value prediction (CPU utilization value regression problem), and the trend direction of CPU utilization (CPU utilization trend classification problem).
A preliminary process, mandatory to follow this approach, is to build a dataset suited to a classification problem. Next, we associate each past observation from the time series with a symbolic label describing the predicted trend (i.e., we label the trend as an upward or a downward trend).
Consequently, we split the dataset into subsequences using the sliding window technique as input for our models. This technique selects every n samples as inputs, and the \((n+1)\)th samples as outputs for value regression and symbolic labels as outputs for trend classification in onestep prediction.
Value regression approach
In this approach, we only focus on predicting the value of CPU utilization and not its trend direction. The CPU utilization value prediction problem has been the traditional approach for proactive resource management in cloud data centers [85]. We use the sliding window technique. In this technique, we use the last n samples as an input to our regression technique, i.e., the VTGAN model, to predict future samples. We consider two versions of our scheme, namely, onestepahead prediction and pstepahead prediction. In the onestepahead version, the regression procedure aims to predict the immediate future sample (i.e., one sample only as an output). This is in contrast to the pstepahead version, where the regression procedure outputs p future samples.
More specifically, let the input \(I_{reg}\) be the CPU utilization timeseries samples. The kth row of \(I_{reg}\) contains n actual data points (actual CPU utilization), namely, \(\{i_k, i_{k+1}, \cdots , i_{n+k1}\}\), where \(k=1,2, \cdots , ln\). We denote the corresponding output by \(O_{reg}\). The output \(O_{reg}\) corresponds to the predicted value(s). The kth row of \(O_{reg}\) is the predicted CPU utilization at the \((n+k)\)th time slot \(\hat{i}_{n+k}\) for onestepahead prediction, while it is the predicted values \(\{\hat{i}_{n+k},\hat{i}_{n+k+1}, \cdots , \hat{i}_{n+k+p}\}\), as shown in Eqs. (8) and (9) for onestepahead and pstepahead prediction, respectively.
where \(i_j\) denotes the actual CPU utilization at time slot j, \(\hat{i}_j\) denotes the predicted CPU utilization at time slot j, n is the sliding window length, and l is the input sequence length.
Trend classification: 2classes approach
In this section, we describe our proposed algorithm for forecasting the trend of CPU utilization. In this case, we classify the direction of the change of the future CPU utilization, whether it is upward or downward. The upward trend of CPU utilization implies that we predict the future CPU utilization to be higher than the current CPU utilization. The downward trend, however, entails that the future CPU utilization is lower than the current CPU utilization. In many practical applications, it is more important to know the trend of workload value rather than the actual value (e.g., in Stock prediction).
Specifically, this approach predicts the CPU utilization trend based on two classes:(i) upward and (ii) downward. The movement of each time slot is associated with a label in the set \(L=\{up, down\}\), which is determined by comparing the current CPU utilization value to one of the previous time slots. We obtain the class \(L_m\) at the mth time slot as follows:
Upward class:
Downward class:
where \(i_{m1}\) is the sample of a time series representing the actual value of the CPU utilization at the \((m1)\)th time slot, and \(\hat{i}_m\) is the predicted future sample at the mth time slot.
Similar to the CPU utilization value prediction problem, in this approach, we use the sliding window technique in the training procedure to predict the next output trend. We perform the trend prediction in either onestepahead prediction fashion or pstepahead prediction. The trend prediction of the kth time slot can be calculated based on W past observations of the CPU utilization values. We obtain this prediction using the socalled embedding technique, i.e., numeric vector input represents a word, by which the vector \(I_k\) of past samples is defined as:
where W denotes the window size, i.e., the number of data points used to obtain a prediction.
The trend classifier aims at finding a function \(f(\cdot )\) that maps the CPU utilization vector \(I_k\) into a binary decision \(L_{k+1}=\{up,down\}\), i.e., \(L_{k+1} = f(I_k)\), where \(L_{k+1}\) denotes the predicted trend label at the \((k+1)\)th time slot. As CPU utilization time series usually have complex behavior, we propose to employ the VTGAN as a classifier (i.e., for identifying upward or downward trends). Consequently, we capture the nonlinear and nonstationary behavior of time series by learning the ML model parameters using datadriven techniques. The input \(I_{class}\) is the CPU utilization timeseries samples. Each row of \(I_{class}\) corresponds to a window of W samples. We organize the samples in a sliding window fashion as in the regression model. The corresponding output \(O_{class}\) represents the predicted class value(s), as shown in Eqs. (13) and (14) for onestepahead and pstepahead prediction, respectively.
For instance, Fig. 5 illustrates a label association example using threesamplewindow (W=3). The embedded vector at the 5th time slot is as follows:
The relative variation from time slot 5 to time slot 6 is:
and so, the trend label of time slot 6 is \(L_{6} = down\).
Experimental configuration and evaluation methodology
This section considers the experimental setting used for assessing our proposed prediction models. Our evaluation includes onestepahead and pstepahead results. We focus our prediction steps p to be limited to 5 (specifically, we focus on \(p=1, 3, 5\) prediction steps). For \(p>5\), we note that the prediction accuracy diminishes. Hence, the prediction outcomes would be less beneficial in practical applications. We compare the accuracy of our proposed VTGAN models against ARIMA, SVR, LSTM, and GRU benchmarks, which appeared in the most recent related works.
Dataset
In our experimental study, we used the PlanetLab traces [60]. These traces contain CPU utilization collected every five minutes from more than 500 places around the world [4]. We show a visual representation of the behavior in Fig. 6, where six days are considered. In particular, CPU utilization values are inputs to predict the value and label for the next time slot. We consider \(80\%\) of workload data during all experiments for training the model to predict the remaining data.
Performance evaluation metrics
We investigate various accuracy metrics used to evaluate the proposed VTGAN algorithm. Regarding the CPU utilization value prediction problem, we study the RMSE, MAPE, Theil’s coefficient, ARV, POCID, and \(R^2\) coefficient as prediction accuracy (equivalently, evaluate the error in the prediction) metrics. We summarize the formal definitions of the aforestated metrics in Table 2. In the CPU utilization trend classification problem, we consider the precision, the recall, and the \(F_1\) score as classification accuracy metrics. We summarize the formal definitions of the classification accuracy metrics in Table 3. In addition, we use the confusion matrix as a visual evaluation to reflect the classifier’s recognition ability for each class. We show the confusion matrix in terms of a 2class approach (upward and downward) for the trend classification problem, while we use 10 quantized classes for the regression problem. Specifically, we quantize the CPU utilization percentage into 10 classes (in steps of \(10\%\)). Hence, we have classes \(0, 1, 2, \cdots , 9\) representing the CPU utilization percentages of \(> 90\%\), \(8090\%\), \(7080\%\), \(\cdots\), \(010\%\).
We select RMSE, MAPE, MAE, and ARV for regression evaluation metrics to measure the deviation between the predicted and actual values. With all these metrics, the absolute value of the error prevents the positive and negative errors from canceling out each other. The MAPE metric, in particular, has the added benefit of allowing prediction accuracy comparison of time series with different value scaling.
Theil’s coefficient measures relative accuracy that compares the obtained predicted results with actual values by giving more weight to massive errors by squaring the deviations. Theil coefficient acceptable ranges from 0 (corresponding to no forecasting error) and 1 (corresponding to no predictive ability). More than 1 value means poor prediction guessing [80, 83].
POCID measures the capability of predicting if future values will increase or decrease. It is superior to MAPE as it measures the prediction accuracy based on its change direction. Therefore, it is a powerful metric during the decisionmaking stage. POCID value closer to 100 represents the best value [11].
\(R^2\) represents the coefficient of how close the values are to be fitted with the line of regression. If \(R^2\) value equal to 1, this means that the model perfectly fits all variability. Therefore, \(R^2\) value closer to 1 represents the best value [11].
For the classification problem, we evaluate the accuracy of the proposed model using the precision, the recall, and the \(F_1\) score.
Experiment configuration
We perform all experiments on Intel Xeon Gold 6248 processor with 2.5 GHz clock speed, 128 GB of memory, and a Tesla V100 GPU with 32 GB of RAM. We implement all deep learning models using the Keras framework and Tensorflow backend with CuDNN kernels. Table 4 illustrates the architecture of proposed models.
We set the batch size and epochs to 32 and 3000, respectively, regarding the training phase. For hybrid CNNLSTM/CNNGRU and stacked LSTM/GRU models, the early stopping technique is used with a 20% validation rate. This technique finds the best point to halt the optimizer (Root Mean Squared Propagation  RMSprop) once the model performance stops improving [53]. We configure the stacked LSTM/GRU network structures as the generator configurations of VTGAN models. Also, the loss function for the generator is the mean squared error after the tryanderror method. We test each model three times, then the average and the standard deviation are calculated.
Results and discussions
This section presents the regression and classification accuracy results of the proposed VTGAN models. Subsections “Onestepahead regression and classification accuracy results”, “Regression and classification accuracy results using technical indicators”, and “Multistepahead regression and classification accuracy results for different sliding window size” show the experimental results of the proposed algorithm compared to traditional models in recent publications such as CNNLSTM/CNNGRU and stackedLSTM/GRU. Also, Section “Bitbrains dataset comparison” illustrates an additional evaluation study with another real cloud dataset (Bitbrains).
Onestepahead regression and classification accuracy results
In this section, we assess the performance of VTGAN models in onestepahead regression and classification approaches. We optimize the window size such that it achieves maximum accuracy. Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the overall accuracy performance of VTGAN models compared to other models for regression and classification approaches, respectively. In addition, These tables show the optimal values for window size, stopped training epochs, and training time for the bestobserved performance in each model. In all tables, the bestobserved model is in bold in each approach.
As we can see from the experimental results, VTGAN (LSTMbased) model is superior to all other prediction models, whether for regression or classification approaches regarding all performance metrics presented in Section “Performance evaluation metrics”. The stacked LSTM model performs the worst compared with all DL techniques. Although, the results of the stacked LSTM remain acceptable since Theil value does not exceed one. Although the SVR model achieves a higher POCID value, it did not exceed the maximum value of VTGAN (LSTMbased) after adding the standard deviation.
Focusing on the sliding window size (from the Tables 5 and 6, \(W=3\), which is equivalent to 15 minutes), VTGAN models achieve higher performance with small sliding window sizes, whether using LSTM or GRU as a generator. This result agrees that the small window size is more suitable for the drift data as cloud workload data, while larger window sizes are more appropriate for noisy data [78]. Nevertheless, since LSTM and GRU techniques capture longterm dependencies [19, 42], the regression and classification accuracy of LSTM/GRU models enhances with a longer window size value relative to VTGAN models.
Hybrid and deep learningbased models are usually more complex and require higher computations for model training. Nevertheless, for all tested models, the training time is acceptable for resource management applications of the data center because overload/underload detection processes often occur every 5 minutes as in [12, 33]. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the CNNGRU model achieves less training time and epochs number whether regression or classification approaches (see underlined values in Tables 5 and 6).
We note that the complexity difference between models is a consequence of using the early stopping technique. Also, Tables 5 and 6 show that GRUbased models record less training time and the number of epochs compared to the LSTMbased models. This observation is consistent with the fact that the GRUbased models are much less computationally intensive. This is due to their ability to converge with fewer parameters [20]. However, the performance accuracy of the VTGAN (LSTMbased) model is superior to the VTGAN (GRUbased) model for all tested models.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the confusion matrices of all models. We use the confusion matrix comparison to visually examine the behavior of VTGAN models compared to others with regression and classification results, respectively. Also, Fig. 9 illustrates a part of the actual CPU utilization compared to the predicted value using all models. The interval length is of 5 minutes.
The confusion matrix results of regression models in Fig. 7 illustrate the predictive capability within every CPU utilization interval. Figure 7 shows that the VTGAN (LSTMbased) model is superior in overall prediction accuracy. VTGAN (LSTMbased) model achieves accurate prediction at every CPU utilization range. In contrast, the prediction accuracy reduces for very low or very high CPU utilization values compared to other models, particularly for the ARIMA, SVR, and CNNLSTM models, as shown in Fig. 9.
The confusion matrix results of classification models in Fig. 8 signify the classification accuracy for predicting upward or downward trends. Figure 8, VTGAN (LSTMbased) model achieves the best performance, followed by VTGAN (GRUbased) and stacked GRU models, which record slightly less accuracy. The strength of the classification approach is that it is easy to make direct decisions depending on the classifier results. For instance, we can detect the overloaded server if its CPU utilization records more than a specific threshold and the predicted trend is upward. This solution will reduce unnecessary migrations in resource management frameworks. Especially, the False downward detection probability with VTGAN (LSTMbased) model is low (\(\approx 4\%\)).
Regression and classification accuracy results using technical indicators
This section analyzes the impact of adding Technical Indicators (TIs) to the feature set with our workload traces. By repeating previous experiments in Section “Onestepahead regression and classification accuracy results”, Tables 7 and 8 illustrate the overall accuracy performance of VTGAN models using TI strategy compared to other models for regression and classification approaches, respectively.
In general, the TI addition diminishes the regression and classification performance for all tested models in terms of onestepahead prediction. This result could be due to the occurrence of overfitting by adding dependent features. VTGAN models are still the superior models for regression and classification approaches.
VTGAN (GRUbased) model outperforms other models (bold results). In contrast, CNNLSTM/GRU models are the worst performance. In this case, the regression becomes useless, where the Theil value of these models record exceeds one, as shown in Table 7.
Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the comparison of confusion matrices between all the models using TIs strategy to examine the visual behavior of VTGAN models compared to others.
Focusing on the training speed of the models, we note that the single benefit of using the TI strategy for onestepahead prediction is that the training is faster than others. Specifically, the training time and the number of epochs reduce for CNNLSTM/GRU and stacked LSTM/GRU models, whether regression or classification approaches compared to the results in Subsection “Onestepahead regression and classification accuracy results”. For instance, the training epochs and time decrease from 576 and 74.8 seconds in Table 5 to 235 and 35 seconds using the TI strategy for the CNNLSTM model in Table 7.
Multistepahead regression and classification accuracy results for different sliding window size
This section studies the performance of the multistepahead prediction. Also, we assess the effect of changing the sliding window sizes on our models’ performance and/or adding TI features to the input of the prediction algorithm. The following subsections analyze the impact of change in sliding window size, multistepahead, and TI strategy, respectively.
Sliding window size analysis
This section analyzes the effect of changing the sliding window size. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate MAPE and \(F_1\) score values against the slidingwindow size for all tested models. Subfigures in every row represent the stepahead size (\(p=1, 3, 5\)). The second column represents the results after adding the TI indicators.
Figures 12 and 13 show that VTGAN models’ performance significantly declines when the sliding window size increases. In contrast, the performance of other models oscillates to a reasonable degree. Fortunately, the VTGAN models’ accuracy outperforms other models with small window sizes. This result is considered a considerable benefit when we run our model for realtime resource management framework as in [33]. This result implies that as soon as the model collects three CPU utilization data points (i.e., in a period of 15 minutes), it can successfully predict future samples.
Technical indicators effect on multistepahead prediction
This section analyzes the impact of using TIs for all tested scenarios with different sliding windows and stepahead sizes. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate MAPE and \(F_1\) score values, respectively. Solid and striped bars represent the pure models and models using the TIs, respectively, with various sliding window sizes (3, 5, 10, 15, and 20) and stepahead sizes (\(p=1, 3, 5\)).
In general, the performance of all models with multistepahead fails to maintain its performance whenever the prediction step size increases for all tested configurations. As shown in solid bars only in Figs. 14 and 15. This result agrees with the results in [61, 85], which confirmed that most deeplearning and hybrid models perform poorly in longterm prediction approaches. That is because of the nature of CPU utilization data, where it fails to fit models due to the complexity and nonlinearity issues.
Regarding the onestepahead prediction, the use of the TI strategy negatively affects the regression and classification performance except for the VTGAN (LSTMbased) model. It achieves a significant improvement for window size equals 10 (Figs. 14(g) and 15(g)), then a slight improvement in regression performance for window sizes equal 15 and 20 (Fig. 14(j) and (m)).
Regarding multistepahead regression, the use of the TI strategy achieves a significant improvement with stacked LSTM/GRU models (Fig. 14(columns 2 and 3)).
Regarding multistepahead classification, the use of the TI strategy achieves a slight improvement with the stacked LSTM model and most CNNLSTM/GRU models (Fig. 15(columns 2 and 3)).
Table 9 illustrates the best configurations based on the number of prediction steps for regression and classification approaches. Service providers can choose the model and adjust the configuration based on the required prediction steps. For onestepahead prediction, VTGAN (LSTMbased) model outperforms other models with a window size equal to 3 (15 minutes), whether regression or classification approaches. For multistepahead prediction, Stacked LSTM/GRU and CNNLSTM outperform other models with TIs for the regression and classification approach, respectively.
In general, the use of the TI strategy is powerful in the case of longterm prediction strategy in some models. Unfortunately, this is not suitable for realtime resource management frameworks in cloud data centers, and that might be because adding dependent features leads to an overfitting issue. Nevertheless, this issue is promising to investigate and could be improved using ensemble and hybrid strategies as in [86].
Bitbrains dataset comparison
To confirm the performance evaluation of the proposed models, we perform experiments using another real cloud dataset, namely, Bitbrains [72]. This dataset is published online in the Grid workloads archive [10]. It is a largescale and longterm trace of real data. The dataset of Bitbrains contains data spanning over 5,446,811 CPU hours (1750 VMs), with 23,214 GB memory and 5,501 cores. For comparison purposes, we perform the same preprocessing steps as [44]. Then, we evaluate our proposed models compared to the models of Authors in [44] with the regression approach only, as using the trend classification is a novel approach in the field of cloud workload forecasting.
Table 10 illustrates the MAPE of CPU utilization prediction with the values of the same variables that are used in [44], such as window size and train/test ratio. Also, Table 11 illustrates the lowest MAPE value for each model with optimum window size and split ratio, which is obtained from all combinations shown in Table 10.
We can see that our proposed models achieve the highest prediction accuracy compared to other stateoftheart prediction models in [44]. However, the lowest MAPE is obtained in our VTGAN (GRUbased) model for a window size of 60 and a split ratio of 80:20. The split size ratio remains the same for our VTGAN (LSTMbased) model, but history window size changes to 30.
Table 12 illustrates the improvement or diminishing percentage of using our proposed models compared to the stateoftheart prediction models. We calculate it as [44] using the Eq. (17), where \(Y_p\) and \(Y_c\) denote the MAPE value of our proposed model and the compared model, respectively. We take into consideration the best combination scenario only for all the models in terms of window size and split ratio.
For this comparison study, we use ARIMA, LSTM, GRU, BiLSTM, and BHyPreC as the baseline models to compare. The Positive percentage denotes the percentage increase of the MAPE value of the compared model with respect to our proposed models. We clearly see that the percentage MAPE value increases for all the models compared to our proposed models.
As we can see, our proposed models considerably minimize the MAPE in predicting CPU utilization. Therefore, our models are not only superior to the classical models (ARIMA) but also perform much better compared to other deep learning approaches presented in this paper.
Conclusions and future works
In recent years, the workload prediction process has become a key stage towards efficient resource allocation and management approaches in cloud computing environments. Due to the nonlinearity of cloud workloads, this issue faces enormous challenges. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel direction in the cloud workload prediction field by considering the future movement direction in a modern classification structure. In addition, it presents novel VTGAN models, which are based on a GAN network with stacked LSTM or GRU as a generator and 1D CNN as a discriminator. The main benefit of VTGAN models is their ability to deal effectively with longterm nonlinear dependencies of cloud workloads.
In this paper, we study the proposed models on different configurations over an overvolatile real cloud workload trace. Also, we present the impact of tuning sliding window size and multistepahead strategy. In addition, we study the use of technical indicators, Fourier transforms, and wavelet transforms to increase the number of input features. We apply all of these studies with the VTGAN models compared to stacked LSTM/GRU and CNNLSTM/GRU models.
The experimental results demonstrate that the VTGAN models are superior for the cloud workload prediction approach, whether using LSTM or GRU as a generator. Also, these results illustrate the effectiveness of transforming the problem to classify the trend instead of predicting the value of future workload for all tested models. Significantly, the upward classification accuracy reaches 96.6%. The proactive overload detection stage in the resource management techniques is a critical issue that overcomes the unnecessary migrations that violate the service level agreement for endusers. The results are not promising regarding the multistepahead prediction and technical indicator strategies. Thus, onestepahead prediction is more suitable for a realtime cloud environment. In addition, the technical indicator approach may be extended further by proposing a solution to optimize the prediction and classification error.
As an additional suggestion for future work, a dynamic scaling method can be applied rather than set a fixed value to improve the prediction and classification accuracy. Another future direction is to implement these prediction models in an actual resource management framework for the cloud data center through the CloudSim simulation tool to evaluate the proposed models in a largescale simulated cloud environment. Hence, the decision of resource allocation will be based on the trend. In addition, we will extend the classification approach so that the CPU utilization trend will be predicted based on three classes:(i) upward trend, (ii) hold, and (ii) downward trend.
As further promising directions for future research, our contribution opens research areas concerning nextgeneration computing, such as Edge AI [75]. Especially, a hybrid solution could be presented by processing realtime applications on edge devices and training models on the cloud [50, 65]. Our trend classification approach could be helpful in this Edgetocloud integration approach in offloading the training process to the cloud by allocating it to the best host, depending on the future workload of the servers. This approach could be considered and implemented for most resource allocation frameworks, such as Mobile edge computing and fog computing platforms for internet of things (IoT) purposes [49]. That approach increases computational performance and reduces the total energy consumed and processing times for mobile or edge devices. Moreover, edge computational resources suffer from QoS degradation due to overloading and inconsistency. Therefore, an intelligent proactive workload management framework could be presented to guarantee the load balancing between the edge resources using our classification approach.
Availability of data and materials
The data required to support these findings cannot be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing Ph.D. thesis.
Abbreviations
 ANNs:

Artificial neural networks
 ARMA:

Autoregressive moving average
 ARMAX:

Autoregressive moving average with exogenous inputs
 ARV:

Average relative variance
 BBANDs:

Bollinger bands
 CMA:

Cumulative moving average
 CNN:

Convolution neural network
 DES:

Double exponential smoothing
 DM:

Difference model
 DL:

Deep learning
 DLL:

Dynamically linked library
 EMA:

Exponential moving average
 GAN:

Generative adversarial network
 GRU:

Gated recurrent units
 ETS:

Error trend seasonal exponential smoothing
 KPSS:

KwiatkowskiPhillipsSchmidtShin
 LR:

Linear regression
 LSTM:

Long shortterm memory
 MAs:

Moving averages
 MACD:

Moving average convergence divergence
 MAE:

Mean Absolute Error
 MAPE:

Mean Absolute Percentage Error
 ML:

Machine learning
 MLR:

Multiple linear regression
 MM:

Median model
 MSD:

Moving standard deviation
 MOM:

Momentum
 POCID:

Prediction of Change in Direction
 QoS:

Quality of service
 RMSE:

Root Mean Squared Error
 RNN:

Recurrent neural network
 SES:

Simple exponential smoothing
 SVM:

Support vector machine
 SVR:

Support vector regression
 TIs:

Technical indicators
 WMA:

Weighted moving average
 VM:

Virtual machine
 VTGAN:

Value trend generative adversarial network
References
Alibaba cluster traces. https://github.com/alibaba/clusterdata. Accessed Mar 2022
Dinda. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pdinda/LoadTraces/. Accessed Mar 2022
Google cluster data. https://github.com/google/clusterdata. Accessed Apr 2022
The planetlab traces. http://github.com/beloglazov/planetlabworkloadtraces. Accessed May 2022
Wikimedia foundation. http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/pagecountsraw. Accessed May 2022
Ajila SA, Bankole AA (2013) Cloud client prediction models using machine learning techniques. In: 2013 IEEE 37th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, IEEE, pp 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMPSAC.2013.21
Aldossary M, Alzamil I, Djemame K (2017) Towards virtual machine energyaware cost prediction in clouds. In: International Conference on the Economics of Grids, Clouds, Systems, and Services, Springer, pp 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319680668_10
Alegeh N, Thottoli M, Mian N, Longstaff A, Fletcher S (2021) Feature extraction of timeseries data using dwt and fft for ballscrew condition monitoring. In: Advances in Manufacturing Technology XXXIV: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Manufacturing Research, Incorporating the 35th National Conference on Manufacturing Research, 710 September 2021, University of Derby, Derby, UK, IOS Press, vol 15, p 402. https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE210069
AlonsoMonsalve S, SuárezCetrulo AL, Cervantes A, Quintana D (2020) Convolution on neural networks for highfrequency trend prediction of cryptocurrency exchange rates using technical indicators. Expert Syst Appl 149(113):250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113250
Anoep S, Dumitrescu C, Epema D, Iosup A, Jan M, Li H, Wolters L The grid workloads archive: Bitbrains. http://gwa.ewi.tudelft.nl/datasets/gwat12bitbrains. Accessed June 2022
Anuradha J et al (2021) Big data based stock trend prediction using deep CNN with reinforcementLSTM model. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198021010742
Beloglazov A, Buyya R (2015) Openstack neat: a framework for dynamic and energyefficient consolidation of virtual machines in openstack clouds. Concurr Comput Pract Experience 27(5):1310–1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.3314
Bi J, Li S, Yuan H, Zhou M (2021) Integrated deep learning method for workload and resource prediction in cloud systems. Neurocomputing 424:35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.11.011
Bi J, Li S, Yuan H, Zhao Z, Liu H (2019) Deep neural networks for predicting task time series in cloud computing systems. In: 2019 IEEE 16th International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC), IEEE, pp 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNSC.2019.8743188
Biswas NK, Banerjee S, Biswas U, Ghosh U (2021) An approach towards development of new linear regression prediction model for reduced energy consumption and sla violation in the domain of green cloud computing. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 45:101087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101087
Buyya R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S, Broberg J, Brandic I (2009) Cloud computing and emerging it platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Futur Gener Comput Syst 25(6):599–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2008.12.001
Calheiros RN, Masoumi E, Ranjan R, Buyya R (2014) Workload prediction using ARIMA model and its impact on cloud applications’ QoS. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 3(4):449–458. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2014.2350475
Chen J, Wang Y (2019) A hybrid method for shortterm host utilization prediction in cloud computing. J Electr Comput Eng 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2782349
Chen Z, Hu J, Min G, Zomaya AY, ElGhazawi T (2019) Towards accurate prediction for highdimensional and highlyvariable cloud workloads with deep learning. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 31(4):923–934. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2019.2953745
Chung J, Gulcehre C, Cho K, Bengio Y (2014) Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.3555
Cortez E, Bonde A, Muzio A, Russinovich M, Fontoura M, Bianchini R (2017) Resource central: Understanding and predicting workloads for improved resource management in large cloud platforms. In: Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132747.3132772
Demir S, Mincev K, Kok K, Paterakis NG (2020) Introducing technical indicators to electricity price forecasting: A feature engineering study for linear, ensemble, and deep machine learning models. Appl Sci 10(1):255. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010255
Dezhkam A, Manzuri MT, Aghapour A, Karimi A, Rabiee A, Shalmani SM (2022) A bayesianbased classification framework for financial time series trend prediction. J Supercomput 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227022048344
Duggan M, Mason K, Duggan J, Howley E, Barrett E (2017) Predicting host cpu utilization in cloud computing using recurrent neural networks. In: 2017 12th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), IEEE, pp 67–72. https://doi.org/10.23919/ICITST.2017.8356348
Farahnakian F, Liljeberg P, Plosila J (2013a) Lircup: Linear regression based cpu usage prediction algorithm for live migration of virtual machines in data centers. In: 2013 39th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, IEEE, pp 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2013.23
Farahnakian F, Pahikkala T, Liljeberg P, Plosila J (2013b) Energy aware consolidation algorithm based on knearest neighbor regression for cloud data centers. In: 2013 IEEE/ACM 6th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing, IEEE, pp 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1109/UCC.2013.51
Fawaz HI, Forestier G, Weber J, Idoumghar L, Muller PA (2019) Deep learning for time series classification: a review. Data Min Knowl Discov 33(4):917–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618019006191
Fu X, Zhou C (2017) Predicted affinity based virtual machine placement in cloud computing environments. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 8(1):246–255. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2017.2737624
Gai K, Du Z, Qiu M, Zhao H (2015) Efficiencyaware workload optimizations of heterogeneous cloud computing for capacity planning in financial industry. In: 2015 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing, IEEE, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCloud.2015.73
Goodfellow IJ, PougetAbadie J, Mirza M, Xu B, WardeFarley D, Ozair S, Courville A, Bengio Y (2014) Generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2661. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.2661
Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A (2016) Deep learning. MIT Press, England
Guo Y, Yao W (2018) Applying gated recurrent units pproaches for workload prediction. In: NOMS 20182018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, IEEE, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/NOMS.2018.8406290
Hassan HA, Maiyza AI, Sheta WM (2020) Integrated resource management pipeline for dynamic resourceeffective cloud data center. J Cloud Comput 9(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677020002128
Hieu NT, Di Francesco M, YläJääski A (2017) Virtual machine consolidation with multiple usage prediction for energyefficient cloud data centers. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 13(1):186–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2017.2648791
Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long shortterm memory. Neural Comput 9(8):1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735
Huang Z, Peng J, Lian H, Guo J, Qiu W (2017) Deep recurrent model for server load and performance prediction in data center. Complexity 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8584252
Hu Y, Deng B, Peng F (2016) Autoscaling prediction models for cloud resource provisioning. In: 2016 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), IEEE, pp 1364–1369. https://doi.org/10.1109/CompComm.2016.7924927
Hu Y, Deng B, Peng F, Wang D (2016) Workload prediction for cloud computing elasticity mechanism. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analysis (ICCCBDA), IEEE, pp 244–249. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCBDA.2016.7529565
Hyndman RJ, Khandakar Y, et al (2008) Automatic time series forecasting: the forecast package for r. J Stat Softw 27(3):1–22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v027.i03
Hyndman RJ, Athanasopoulos G (2018) Forecasting: principles and practice. OTexts, Australia
Janardhanan D, Barrett E (2017) Cpu workload forecasting of machines in data centers using lstm recurrent neural networks and arima models. In: 2017 12th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), IEEE, pp 55–60. https://doi.org/10.23919/ICITST.2017.8356346
Jozefowicz R, Zaremba W, Sutskever I (2015) An empirical exploration of recurrent network architectures. In: International conference on machine learning, PMLR, pp 2342–2350
Kara Y, Boyacioglu MA, Baykan ÖK (2011) Predicting direction of stock price index movement using artificial neural networks and support vector machines: The sample of the istanbul stock exchange. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5311–5319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.10.027
Karim ME, Maswood MMS, Das S, Alharbi AG (2021) Bhyprec: a novel biLSTM based hybrid recurrent neural network model to predict the CPU workload of cloud virtual machine. IEEE Access 9:131476–131495. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3113714
Khan T, Tian W, Ilager S, Buyya R (2022) Workload forecasting and energy state estimation in cloud data centres: Mlcentric approach. Futur Gener Comput Syst 128:320–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2021.10.019
Kim IK, Wang W, Qi Y, Humphrey M (2016) Empirical evaluation of workload forecasting techniques for predictive cloud resource scaling. In: 2016 IEEE 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD), IEEE, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/CLOUD.2016.0011
Kumar J, Goomer R, Singh AK (2018) Long short term memory recurrent neural network (LSTMRNN) based workload forecasting model for cloud datacenters. Procedia Comput Sci 125:676–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.087
Kumar J, Singh AK, Buyya R (2020) Ensemble learning based predictive framework for virtual machine resource request prediction. Neurocomputing 397:20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.02.014
Kumar M, Kishor A, Samariya JK, Zomaya AY (2023) An autonomic workload prediction and resource allocation framework for fog enabled industrial IoT. IEEE Internet Things J. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2023.3235107
Li C, Bai J, Luo Y (2020) Efficient resource scaling based on load fluctuation in edgecloud computing environment. J Supercomput 76:6994–7025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227019031348
Lin W, Yao K, Zeng L, Liu F, Shan C, Hong X (2022) A GANbased method for timedependent cloud workload generation. J Parallel Distrib Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2022.05.007
Liu J, Tan X, Wang Y (2019) Cssap: software aging prediction for cloud services based on arimalstm hybrid model. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), IEEE, pp 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWS.2019.00055
Mahsereci M, Balles L, Lassner C, Hennig P (2017) Early stopping without a validation set. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.09580. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1703.09580
Melhem SB, Agarwal A, Goel N, Zaman M (2017) Markov prediction model for host load detection and VM placement in live migration. IEEE Access 6:7190–7205. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2785280
Moghaddam SM, O’Sullivan M, Walker C, Piraghaj SF, Unsworth CP (2020) Embedding individualized machine learning prediction models for energy efficient VM consolidation within cloud data centers. Futur Gener Comput Syst 106:221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.01.008
Mozo A, Ordozgoiti B, GómezCanaval S (2018) Forecasting shortterm data center network traffic load with convolutional neural networks. PloS ONE 13(2):e0191939. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191939
Nashold L, Krishnan R (2020) Using lstm and sarima models to forecast cluster CPU usage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08092. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2007.08092
Niedermaier S, Koetter F, Freymann A, Wagner S (2019) On observability and monitoring of distributed systems–an industry interview study. In: International Conference on ServiceOriented Computing, Springer, pp 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783030337025_3
Ouhame S, Hadi Y, Ullah A (2021) An efficient forecasting approach for resource utilization in cloud data center using cnnlstm model. Neural Comput & Applic pp 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521021057709
Park K, Pai VS (2006) Comon: a mostlyscalable monitoring system for PlanetLab. ACM SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev 40(1):65–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/1113361.1113374
Patel YS, Jaiswal R, Pandey S, Misra R (2020) k stacked bidirectional lstm for resource usage prediction in cloud data centers. In: International Conference on Internet of Things and Connected Technologies, Springer, pp 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783030767365_14
Patel YS, Bedi J (2023) Magd: A multivariate attention network based approach for cloud workload forecasting. Futur Gener Comput Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2023.01.002
Patel M, Chaudhary S, Garg S (2016) Machine learning based statistical prediction model for improving performance of live virtual machine migration. J Eng 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3061674
Peng C, Li Y, Yu Y, Zhou Y, Du S (2018) Multistepahead host load prediction with gru based encoderdecoder in cloud computing. In: 2018 10th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), IEEE, pp 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1109/KST.2018.8426104
Porambage P, Kumar T, Liyanage M, Partala J, Lovén L, Ylianttila M, Seppänen T (2019) Secedgeai: Ai for edge security vs security for edge ai. The 1st 6G Wireless Summit (Levi, Finland). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10586021034920. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13369021063482
Prevost JJ, Nagothu K, Kelley B, Jamshidi M (2011) Prediction of cloud data center networks loads using stochastic and neural models. In: 2011 6th International Conference on System of Systems Engineering, IEEE, pp 276–281. https://doi.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2011.5966610
Sahi SK, Dhaka V (2015) Study on predicting for workload of cloud services using artificial neural network. In: 2015 2nd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), IEEE, pp 331–335
Saxena D, Singh AK (2021) A proactive autoscaling and energyefficient VM allocation framework using online multiresource neural network for cloud data center. Neurocomputing 426:248–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.08.076
Selvin S, Vinayakumar R, Gopalakrishnan E, Menon VK, Soman K (2017) Stock price prediction using lstm, rnn and cnnsliding window model. In: 2017 international conference on advances in computing, communications and informatics (icacci), IEEE, pp 1643–1647. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2017.8126078
Shah J, Vaidya D, Shah M (2022) A comprehensive review on multiple hybrid deep learning approaches for stock prediction. Intell Syst Appl 200111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200111
Shaw SB, Singh AK (2015) Use of proactive and reactive hotspot detection technique to reduce the number of virtual machine migration and energy consumption in cloud data center. Comput Electr Eng 47:241–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2015.07.020
Shen S, Van Beek V, Iosup A (2015) Statistical characterization of businesscritical workloads hosted in cloud datacenters. In: 2015 15th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, IEEE, pp 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCGrid.2015.60
Shuvo MNH, Maswood MMS, Alharbi AG (2020) Lsru: A novel deep learning based hybrid method to predict the workload of virtual machines in cloud data center. In: 2020 IEEE Region 10 Symposium (TENSYMP), IEEE, pp 1604–1607. https://doi.org/10.1109/TENSYMP50017.2020.9230799
Shynkevich Y, McGinnity TM, Coleman SA, Belatreche A, Li Y (2017) Forecasting price movements using technical indicators: Investigating the impact of varying input window length. Neurocomputing 264:71–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.11.095
Singh R, Gill SS (2023) Edge ai: A survey. Internet of Things and CyberPhysical Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.02.004
Song B, Yu Y, Zhou Y, Wang Z, Du S (2018) Host load prediction with long shortterm memory in cloud computing. J Supercomput 74(12):6554–6568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1122701720444
Tahir F, Abdullah M, Bukhari F, Almustafa KM, Iqbal W (2020) Online workload burst detection for efficient predictive autoscaling of applications. IEEE Access 8:73730–73745. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988207
Tschumitschew K, Klawonn F (2017) Effects of drift and noise on the optimal sliding window size for data stream regression models. Commun StatTheory Methods 46(10):5109–5132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2015.1096388
Ullah F, Bilal M, Yoon SK (2023) Intelligent timeseries forecasting framework for nonlinear dynamic workload and resource prediction in cloud. Comput Netw 109653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2023.109653
Vashistha A, Verma P (2020) A literature review and taxonomy on workload prediction in cloud data center. In: 2020 10th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), IEEE, pp 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1109/Confluence47617.2020.9057938
Vazquez C, Krishnan R, John E (2015) Time series forecasting of cloud data center workloads for dynamic resource provisioning. J Wirel Mob Netw Ubiquit Comput Dependable Appl 6(3):87–110
Wang F, Yu Y, Zhang Z, Li J, Zhen Z, Li K (2018) Wavelet decomposition and convolutional LSTM networks based improved deep learning model for solar irradiance forecasting. Appl Sci 8(8):1286. https://doi.org/10.3390/app8081286
Wong JM, Ng ST (2010) Forecasting construction tender price index in Hong Kong using vector error correction model. Constr Manag Econ 28(12):1255–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2010.487536
Yang Q, Zhou Y, Yu Y, Yuan J, Xing X, Du S (2015) Multistepahead host load prediction using autoencoder and echo state networks in cloud computing. J Supercomput 71(8):3037–3053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1122701514268
Yazdanian P, Sharifian S (2021) E2lg: a multiscale ensemble of lstm/gan deep learning architecture for multistepahead cloud workload prediction. J Supercomput 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227021037236
Yıldırım DC, Toroslu IH, Fiore U (2021) Forecasting directional movement of forex data using LSTM with technical and macroeconomic indicators. Financ Innov 7(1):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854020002202
Zhang W, Li B, Zhao D, Gong F, Lu Q (2016) Workload prediction for cloud cluster using a recurrent neural network. In: 2016 International Conference on Identification, Information and Knowledge in the Internet of Things (IIKI), IEEE, pp 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1109/IIKI.2016.39
Zhu Q, Agrawal G (2012) Resource provisioning with budget constraints for adaptive applications in cloud environments. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 5(4):497–511. https://doi.org/10.1145/1851476.1851516
Zhu Y, Zhang W, Chen Y (2019) Gao H (2019) A novel approach to workload prediction using attentionbased LSTM encoderdecoder network in cloud environment. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 1:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s136380191605z
Acknowledgements
The workload traces used in this work were provided by Bitbrains IT Services Inc. from the GRID Workloads Archive. Also, the authors would like to acknowledge and be grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their wonderful suggestions.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, Aya, Noha, Karim, Hanan and Walaa; methodology, Aya, Noha, Karim, Hanan and Walaa; implementation, Aya; validation, Aya, Noha, Karim, Hanan and Walaa; writing— original draft preparation, Aya, Noha and Karim; writing—review and editing, Aya, Noha, Karim, Hanan and Walaa; supervision, Noha, Karim, Hanan and Walaa. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Consent for publication
Consent has been granted by all authors and there is no conflict.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Maiyza, A.I., Korany, N.O., Banawan, K. et al. VTGAN: hybrid generative adversarial networks for cloud workload prediction. J Cloud Comp 12, 97 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1367702300473z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1367702300473z