Total views : 354

Comparison of Multi Criteria Decision Making Algorithms for Ranking Cloud Renderfarm Services


  • IT Department, B.S. Abdur Rahman University, Chennai - 600048, Tamil Nadu, India
  • CSE Department, B.S. Abdur Rahman University, Chennai – 600048, Tamil Nadu, India
  • Niteo Technologies, Chennai - 600017, Tamil Nadu, India


Cloud services that provide a complete environment for the animators to render their files using the resources in the cloud are called Cloud Renderfarm Services. The objective of this work is to rank and compare the performance of these services using two popular Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Algorithms namely the Analytical Hierarchical Processing (AHP) and SAW (Simple Additive Weighting) methods. The performance of three real time cloud renderfarm services are ranked and compared based on five Quality of Service (QoS) attributes that are important to these services namely the Render Node Cost, File Upload Time, Availability, Elasticity and Service Response Time. The performance of these cloud renderfarm services are ranked in four different simulations by varying the weights assigned for each QoS attribute and the ranking obtained are compared. The results show that AHP and SAW assigned similar ranks to all three cloud renderfarm services for all simulations.


AHP, Comparison of MCDM Algorithms, Cloud Renderfarm Services, Multi Criteria Decision Making, Ranking Cloud Services, SAW.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 234)


  • Glez-Morcillo C et al. A New Approach to Grid Computing for Distributed Rendering. 2011 International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing (3PGCIC), IEEE. 2011.
  • Patoli MZ et al. An open source grid based render farm for blender 3d. Power Systems Conference and Exposition, PSCE’09. IEEE/PES. IEEE. 2009.
  • Patoli Z et al. How to build an open source render farm based on desktop grid computing. Wireless Networks, Information Processing and Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2009; 268–78.
  • Gkion M et al. Collaborative 3D digital content creation exploiting a Grid network. International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies, 2009. ICICT’09, IEEE. 2009.
  • Chong AS, Levinski K. Grid-based computer animation rendering, InGRAPHITE ’06: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and Southeast Asia, New York, NY, USA, ACM. 2006.
  • Baharon MR et al. Secure rendering process in cloud computing. 2013 Eleventh Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), IEEE. 2013.
  • Kennedy J, Healy P. A method of provisioning a Cloud-based renderfarm, EP2538328 A1 [Patent].
  • Cho K et al. Render Verse: Hybrid Render Farm for Cluster and Cloud Environments. 2014 7th Conference on Control and Automation (CA), IEEE. 2014.
  • Carroll MD, Hadzic I, Katsak WA. 3D Rendering in the Cloud. Bell Labs Technical Journal. 2012; 17(2):55–66.
  • Srinivasa G et al. Runtime prediction framework for CPU intensive applications, U.S. Patent No. 7,168,074. 2007.
  • Tran VX, Tsuji H, Masuda R. A new QoS ontology and its QoS-based ranking algorithm for Web services. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory. 2009; 17(8):1378–98.
  • Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 1990; 48(1):9–26.
  • Stevens-Navarro E, Wong VW. Comparison between vertical handoff decision algorithms for heterogeneous wireless networks. 2006 . In Vehicular technology conference, (2006). VTC 2006-Spring. IEEE 63rd. 2006; 2:947–51.
  • Kalpana V, Meena V. Study on data storage correctness methods in mobile cloud computing. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Mar; 8(6). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i6/70094.
  • Durairaj M, Manimaran A. A study on security issues in cloud based e-learning. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Apr; 8(8). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i8/69307.
  • Shyamala K, Sunitha Rani T. An analysis on efficient resource allocation mechanisms in cloud computing. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 May; 8(9). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i9/50180.
  • Rajasekaran A, Kumar A. User preference based environment provisioning in cloud. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jun; 8(11). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i11/71781.
  • John SM, Mohamed M. Novel backfilling technique with deadlock avoidance and migration for grid workflow scheduling. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jun; 8(12). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i12/60755.
  • Bagheri R, Jahanshahi M. Scheduling workflow applications on the heterogeneous cloud resources. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jun; 8(12). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i12/57984.
  • Uddin M, Memon J, Alsaqour R, Shah A, Abdul Rozan MZ. Mobile agent based multi-layer security framework for cloud data centers. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jun; 8(12). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i12/52923.
  • Meghana Ramya Shri J, Subramaniyaswamy V. An effective approach to rank reviews based on relevance by weighting method. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jun; 8(11). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i11/61768.
  • Moayeri M, Shahvarani A, Behzadi MH, Hosseinzadeh-Lotfi F. Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods for Math Teachers Selection. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jul; 8(13). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i13/5410.
  • Venkatesan N, ArunmozhiArasan K, Muthukumaran S. An ID3 algorithm for performance of decision tree in predicting student’s absenteeism in an academic year using categorical datasets. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jul; 8(14). Doi:10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i14/72730.
  • Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R. SMICloud: a framework for comparing and ranking cloud services 2011. 2011 Fourth IEEE International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC). 2011. p. 210–8.
  • Annette R, Aisha Banu W. Article: A Service Broker Model for Cloud based Render Farm Selection 2014. International Journal of Computer Applications, Published by Foundation of Computer Science, New York, USA. 2014; 96(24):11–4.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.