MONWS: Multi-Objective Normalization Workflow Scheduling for Cloud Computing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes an approach for scheduling tasks over cloud computing servers. However, the paper has many unclear points and should be revised. Please see the detail in the following.

1-     The contribution of the algorithm is ambigious.

2-     The introduction should be included motivation and contribution.

3-     The explanations of workflows should be moved from introduction to related work.

4-     The algorithm was compared with old schemes. Newly-published papers should be adopted for the sake of comparision.

5-     The text contains numerous syntax and grammar, and even spelling errors, and in many cases, it is difficult to understand the meaning. There is a need for considerable improvement in the presentation and language of the paper.

6-     There are some figures in the text that are neither numbered nor referenced.

7-     There are many mistakes in the written equations, so they should be rewritten. For example in (1), t1, t2, … tn, should be above the bracket.

8-     The used equations are very unclear. There should be a described definition for each used symbol and the general idea of the equations.

9-     All of the abbreviations should be provided with the full definition at their first occurrence, and refrain from repeating the use of the full form after the first time.

10- In the simulation results section, the comparison methods should be connected to a reference. Additionally, The charts should propose a meaningful idea. For example, it is not right to choose a line chart in Figure 6. The used x-ticks should have a connected label. There are ticks with no connected label which confuses the reader.

11- The written pseudo-codes (algorithms) have semantic errors. There are many unused expressions.

12- While refering to an article, only the name of the first author should be appeared.

 

Thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for constructive comments, and compliments to the work. We have revised the paper based on your suggestions/comments. The detailed report on these revisions is given as follows for your perusal and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper very clearly augmented the need for this proposed technique with a detailed literature review along with each study's limitations. The major drawback in the previous studies was trade of between cost and efficient way of allocating the resources. For instance, the BDHEFT algorithm performed better in terms of cost and time but, a complex workflow process results in inefficiency. Therefore, the authors have proposed an algorithm that estimated computation time and early finish time in the ready list and then compare the dynamic threshold value to divide the tasks into groups.

The authors provided the great summary of the previous studies in a tabular form so that anyone can get easily understand the limitation of each algorithm.  In addition, the authors have well-organized and give a brief mathematical representation and algorithms for the proposed algorithms MONWS.

To improve the overall quality of paper authors need to address following:

1) I found this paper's quality may improve by employing these changes related to formatting: lots of spacing issues as we can see on line numbers (34, 38, 39, 89, and many other similar).

2) Similarly, I found the missing figure number as mentioned in line number 99. Extra-space issues on page number: 7, 13 and17.

3) Normally, authors never start the heading after healing without explaining the first one like in this paper, Scheduling Problem Formation needs some text then we can start the Application model on page 8. 

4) The VM selection algorithm needs more clarity in terms of some comments. Equations were defined well but need some similarity in term of format, some equation looks very good and some looks fine (please double-check equation 14).

5) The proposed algorithm was tested in a simulation-based environment. I firmly believe that there is huge difference between a cloud real-time environment and a simulation-based. Therefore, I highly suggested authors perform this algorithm test on an actual environment or create a small cloud system of their own and show the real results and performance differences.

 

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for constructive comments, and compliments to the work. We have revised the paper based on your suggestions/comments. The detailed report on these revisions is given as follows for your perusal and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Only few minor grammatical mistake need to be correct.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for suggesting important changes in the paper. As suggested, the grammar, and spelling errors are rectified. Also, all the sentences in the paper are thoroughly verified for their correctness and meaning to improve the readability.

Further, the presentation and language of the paper is improved by performing thorough proofread of the paper, which is also validated by Inkerpress and attached proofread certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf