Determining Appropriate Large Object Stores with a Multi-criteria Approach

The area of storage solutions is becoming more and more heterogeneous. Even in the case of relational databases, there are several offerings, which differ from vendor to vendor and are offered for different deployments like on-premises or in the Cloud, as Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) or as a special Virtual Machine on the Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) level. Beyond traditional relational databases, the NoSQL idea has gained a lot of attraction. Indeed, there are various services and products available from several providers. Each storage solution has virtues of its own even within the same product category for certain aspects. For example, some systems are offered as cloud services and pursue a pay-as-you-go principle without upfront investments or license costs. Others can be installed on premises, thus achieving higher privacy and security. Some store redundantly to achieve high reliability for higher costs. This paper suggests a multi-criteria approach for finding appropriate storage for large objects. Large objects might be, for instance, images of virtual machines, high resolution analysis images, or consumer videos. Multi-criteria means that individual storage requirements can be attached to objects and containers having the overall goal in mind to relieve applications from the burden to find corresponding appropriate storage systems. For efficient storage and retrieval, a metadata-based approach is presented that relies on an association with storage objects and containers. The heterogeneity of involved systems and their interfaces is handled by a federation approach that allows for transparent usage of several storages in parallel. All together applications benefit from the specific advantages of particular storage solutions for specific problems. In particular, the paper presents the required extensions for an object storage developed by the VISION Cloud project.

[1]  Zahir Tari,et al.  Creating a 'Cloud Storage' Mashup for High Performance, Low Cost Content Delivery , 2008, ICSOC Workshops.

[2]  Uwe Hohenstein,et al.  A Multi-criteria Approach for Large-object Cloud Storage , 2017, DATA.

[3]  Erik Elmroth,et al.  A Cloud Environment for Data-intensive Storage Services , 2011, 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science.

[4]  David Bermbach,et al.  MetaStorage: A Federated Cloud Storage System to Manage Consistency-Latency Tradeoffs , 2011, 2011 IEEE 4th International Conference on Cloud Computing.

[5]  Dimosthenis Kyriazis,et al.  Retrieving, Storing, Correlating and Distributing Information for Cloud Management , 2012, GECON.

[6]  Ulrich Junker,et al.  QUICKXPLAIN: Preferred Explanations and Relaxations for Over-Constrained Problems , 2004, AAAI.

[7]  Dimosthenis Kyriazis,et al.  Cloud-based content centric storage for large systems , 2012, 2012 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS).

[8]  Uwe Hohenstein,et al.  An Approach for Hybrid Clouds using VISION Cloud Federation , 2014, CLOUD 2014.

[9]  Chandra Krintz,et al.  An Evaluation of Distributed Datastores Using the AppScale Cloud Platform , 2010, 2010 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing.

[10]  Martin Fowler,et al.  NoSQL Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Emerging World of Polyglot Persistence , 2012 .

[11]  Tim Kraska,et al.  Building a database on S3 , 2008, SIGMOD Conference.

[12]  Hakim Weatherspoon,et al.  RACS: a case for cloud storage diversity , 2010, SoCC '10.

[13]  Massimo Villari,et al.  Data On-Boarding in Federated Storage Clouds , 2013, 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Cloud Computing.

[14]  P. Mell,et al.  The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing , 2011 .

[15]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  Above the Clouds: A Berkeley View of Cloud Computing , 2009 .