I'm looking to use game theory to improve the quality of cloud computing systems
I want to apply game theory to solve the non-functional requirements issue, but should this be done by using game theory or not?
How could I determine if there is any improvement ?
How could I measure the improvement?
Then could I improve all of the 16 non-functional requirements (performance, security, safety, etc)?
There are several papers related to cloud computing applications using game theory. So, I would suggest to model your proposed thing using suitable game theory, design utility functions, and then, simulate it in any simulator (cloudsim) or real systems (Hadoop).
Game theory as a branch of mathematics helps to address strategies for dealing with situations that are competitive. In such situations, the outcome of a participant's choice of action depends on the action of other participants. Game theory has a broad application.
Cloud computing on the other hand deals with the use of a network of remote servers hosted on the internet to store, aggregate, and manage data. In this process, in most situations, there is always competition. People compete for resources. Since the internet can be likened to a Graph data structure consisting of nodes and edges, Game theory, as a branch of mathematics, can be applied as an important tool to solving problems associated with cloud computing.
There are numerous scientific research papers that you can get from reputable international journals.
Regards
Olugbenga
YES, cloud computing quality can be improved by applying the knowledge of game theory.
There are many applications of Game Theory in Cloud Computing including load balancing in data center networks (used for storage purpose) in cloud computing. Other applications include job scheduling, resource allocation etc by which one can improve the cloud services.
When we are using a construct like game theory, we should get a feel of which aspect of cloud adoption can be significantly influenced by game theory. Let me elaborate a bit.
Cloud Computing, the world of buying computing as a utility, is on the threshold of a massive global acceptance. Though the advantages of Cloud Computing have been widely documented, the adoption of cloud as a viable alternative to the traditional stand-alone IT systems is only building up. Organizations are evaluating their IT asset portfolios in trying to assess what could move out to the cloud and what ought to remain in-house. In this context, assets are getting bifurcated into ownership assets and utilization assets and one of the key decision support tools that is facilitating this division is ‘Risk Management’. Any new technology adoption comes with a set of associated risks, some endogenous and the rest exogenous.
An HBR paper by Rogert Kaplan [Kaplan Robert S., Mikes Anette (2012), “Managing Risks: A new framework”, Harvard Business Review, June 2012 ] has helped in the delineation of overall risks into three buckets - Preventable Risks, Strategic Risks and External Risks. OF these, the Strategic Risks - or risks on which we expect a payoff - can be modeled using Game Theory.
Let me elaborate a bit more.
Strategic risks are those risks that are adopted by firms to gain a specific strategic leverage. In the context of cloud computing, conscious adoption of a multi-tenancy framework (despite knowing the risks of common space sharing by multiple clients) is to gain a better pricing advantage of cloud offerings since the hardware space gets commonized between multiple users. Similarly a risk of a high OPEX is consciously adopted to save on equipment purchase, equipment upkeep, equipment upgradation and the likes.
Strategic risks are those risks that follow the archetypal ‘risk-return’ profile. Cloud adopters knowingly and consciously adopt these risks to leverage a better strategic return. The point would be driven home better when one looks at examples of strategic risks across other industries. Simple credit default is a strategic risk which is perpetually associated with the banking industry. Any lending is associated with the inherent risk of a payment default. If banks cannot absorb this risk, then their very survival is in question. Similarly cannibalization of one’s own brands / variants is a strategic risk for FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) industry. For a short period, the firm runs the risk of a well-branded product being pulled out and a new variant trying to establish its place. Upfront R&D investment is a strategic risk for the Pharma Industry. There is no guarantee that one will come up with a breakthrough medicine after every run.
Such a risk-return profile can be modeled using Game Theory constructs.
I am attaching a few weblinks that can throw some more light in the game-risk nexus.
http://gametheory101.com/Risk_Aversion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_dominance
http://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2014/05/29/book-review-risk-return-analysis-the-theory-and-practice-of-rational-investing/
- Badges
- Science method