A Comprehensive Taxonomy and Critical Survey of Scientific Workflow Scheduling Paradigms in IaaS Cloud Computing: Evaluating Fitness for High-Stakes Environmental Modeling
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
Scientific Workflow, IaaS Cloud Computing, Task Scheduling, Multi-Objective Optimization, Taxonomy, Climate Seismicity, Resource ProvisioningAbstract
The escalating computational demands of modern science necessitate the use of Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) cloud platforms, particularly for large-scale, interdependent Scientific Workflows (SWFs). Critical high-stakes applications, such as the modeling of climate-induced seismicity (e.g., the link between rising sea levels and increased seismic activity in coastal regions), require scheduling solutions that ensure not only efficiency but also unparalleled reliability and deadline adherence. This paper provides a comprehensive, systematic survey and novel taxonomy of SWF scheduling algorithms in IaaS environments. The primary objective is to classify state-of-the-art methods and, critically, assess their inherent suitability and limitations when applied to time-sensitive, computationally-intensive research that must account for dynamic, real-world data, such as the 5% increase in seismic events since 2020. We propose a multi-dimensional taxonomy based on primary optimization objectives (e.g., makespan, cost, energy), algorithmic strategy (e.g., heuristic, meta-heuristic, hybrid), and resource provisioning models, performing a detailed analysis on the strengths and weaknesses of key contributions. Current scheduling paradigms exhibit strong performance on traditional benchmarks but reveal significant deficiencies when confronted with the strict reliability and fault tolerance required by critical environmental models, highlighting a prevalent trade-off between cost-effectiveness and system robustness. Ultimately, we conclude that current predictive models are insufficient—not only due to geophysical complexity but also because the underlying resource scheduling and provisioning mechanisms lack the necessary agility and guaranteed performance to accurately and reliably process the influx of high-velocity, high-volume data, underscoring the imperative for a new generation of reliability-aware, deadline-sensitive scheduling.
References
R. Duan, T. Fahringer, R. Prodan, J. Qin, A. Villazon, and M. Wieczorek. Real world workflow applications in the askalon grid environment. European Grid Conference, Springer, page 454– 463, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/11508380_47.
X. Geng, Y. Mao, M. Xiong, and Y. Liu. An improved task scheduling algorithm for scientific workflow in cloud computing environment. Cluster Computing, 22:7539–7548, 2019.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-018-1856-1.
S. Ostermann, A. Iosup, N. Yigitbasi, R. Prodan, T. Fahringer, and D. Epema. A performance analysis of ec2 cloud computing services for scientific computing. International Conference on Cloud Computing, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 642-12636-9_9.
C. N. Hoefer and G. Karagiannis. Taxonomy of cloud computing services. EEE Globecom Workshops, page 1345–1350, 2010.
https://doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOMW.2010.5700157
J. Liu, J. Ren, W. Dai, D. Zhang, P. Zhou, Y. Zhang, G. Min, and N. Najjari. Online multi-workflow scheduling under uncertain task execution time in iaas clouds. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 2019.
M. Zhu, Q. Wu, and Y. Zhao. A cost-effective scheduling algorithm for scientific workflows in clouds. IEEE 31st International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC), page 256–265, 2012.
S. J. Nirmala and S. M. S. Bhanu. Catfish-pso based scheduling of scientific workflows in iaas cloud. Computing 98, page 1091–1109, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-016-0494-9.
W. Jing, W. Qiang, and L. Xiongfei. A data placement and task scheduling algorithm in cloud computing. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 51, 2014.
R. Ghafouri, A. Movaghar, and M. Mohsenzadeh. A budget constrained scheduling algorithm for executing workflow application ininfrastructure as a service clouds. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 12:241–268, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-018-0662-0.
J. Sun, L. Yin, M. Zou, Y. Zhang, T. Zhang, and J. Zhou. Makespan minimization workflow scheduling for complex networks with social groups in edge computing. Journal of Systems Architecture, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2020.101799.
S. Su, J. Li, Q. Huang, X. Huang, K. Shuang, and J. Wang. Cost-efficient task scheduling for executing large programs in the cloud. Parallel Computing, 39:177–188, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2013.03.002.
V. Singh, I. Gupta, and P. K. Jana. An energy efficient algorithm for workflow scheduling in iaas cloud. Journal of Grid Computing, 18:357–376, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10723-019-09490-2.
X. Liu, W. Dou, J. Chen, S. Fan, S.C. Cheung, and S. Cai. On design, verification, and dynamic modification of the problem-based scientific workflow model. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 15:1068–1088, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2007.06.003.
Asghari, M. K. Sohrabi, and F. Yaghmaee. Task scheduling, resource provisioning, and load balancing on scientific workflows using parallel sarsa reinforcement learning agents and genetic algorithm. The Journal of Supercomputing, page 1– 29, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-
-1.
X. Ye, J. Liang, S. Liu, and J. Li. A survey on scheduling workflows in cloud environment. International Conference on Network and Information Systems for Computers, page 344–348, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNISC.2015.91.
Vijindra and S. Shenai. Survey on scheduling issues in cloud computing. Procedia Engineering, 38:2881–2888, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.337.
K. Setrag and B. Marek. Groupware and workflow. Paris : Masson, 1998.
P. Lawrence. Workflow management coalition. Workflow Handbook, 1997.
T. E. El-Sayed, I.E Ali, and F.A Mohamed. Extended max-min scheduling using petri net and load balancing. Int. J. Soft Comput. Eng. (IJSCE), 2:198– 203, 2012.
Gupta, S. Gupta, A. Choudhary, and Jana P.K. A hybrid meta-heuristic approach for load balanced workflow scheduling in iaas cloud. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11319:73–89, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05366-6_6.
J. Gideon, C. Ann, D. Ewa, B. Shishir, M. Gaurang, and V. Karan. Characterizing and profiling scientific workflows. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29:682–692, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2012.08.015.
Ludascher, I. Altintas, C. Berkley, D. Higgins, E. Jaeger, M. Jones, J. Lee, E.A.and Tao, and Y Zhao. Scientific workflow management and the kepler system. Concurrency and computation: Practice and experience, 18:1039–1065, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.994.
T. Oinn, M. Addis, J. Ferris, D. Marvin, M. Greenwood, T. Carver, A. Wipat, and P.L. Taverna. Lessons in creating a workflow environment for the life sciences. GGF10, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.993.
Taylor, M. Shields, I. Wang, and A. Harrison. The triana workflow environment: Architecture and applications. In Workflowsfor e-Science, Springer, pages 320–339, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 1-84628-757-2_20.
T. Fahringer, A. Jugravu, S. Pllana, R. Prodan, C. Seragiotto Jr, and H.L. Truong. Askalon: a tool set for cluster and grid computing. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 17:143– 169, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.929.
E. Deelman, G. Singh, M.H. Su, J. Blythe, Y. Gil, C. Kesselman, G. Mehta, K. Vahi, G.B. Berriman, J. Good, and A. Laity. Pegasus: A framework for mapping complex scientific workflows onto distributed systems. Scientific Programming, 13:219–237, 2005.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2005/128026.
G.J. Toomer. Ptolemy’s almagest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 712, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691213361.
Y.H. Jia, W.N. Chen, H. Yuan, T. Gu, H. Zhang, Y. Gao, and J. Zhang. An intelligent cloud workflow scheduling system with time estimation and adaptive ant colony optimization. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 51:634–649, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2018.2881018.
S. Yassa, R. Chelouah, H. Kadima, and B. Granado. Multi-objective approach for energy-aware workflow scheduling in cloud computing environments. The Scientific World Journal, pages 634–649, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/350934.
S. Yassa, J. Sublime, R. Chelouah, H. Kadima, G.S. Jo, and B. Granado. A genetic algorithm for multi- objective optimisation in workflow scheduling with hard constraints. International Journal of Metaheuristics, 2:415–433, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMHEUR.2013.058475.
M.A. Rodriguez and R. Buyya. Budget-driven scheduling of scientific workflows in iaas clouds with fine-grained billing periods. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS), 12:1–22, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3041036.
V. Singh, I. Gupta, and P.K. Jana. A novel cost- efficient approach for deadline-constrained workflow scheduling by dynamic provisioning of resources. Future Generation Computer Systems, 79:95–110, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.09.054.
V. Arabnejad, K. Bubendorfer, and B. Ng. Budget and deadline aware e-science workflow scheduling in clouds. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed systems, 30:29–44, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2018.2849396.
X. Zhou, G. Zhang, J. Sun, J. Zhou, T. Wei, and S. Hu. Minimizing cost and makespan for workflow scheduling in cloud using fuzzy dominance sort based heft. Future Generation Computer Systems, 93:278–289, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.10.046.
Y. Gao, S. Zhang, and J. Zhou. A hybrid algorithm for multi-objective scientific workflow scheduling in iaas cloud. IEEE Access, 7:125783–125795, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939294.
H.R. Faragardi, M.R.S. Sedghpour, S. Fazliahmadi, T. Fahringer, and N. Rasouli. Grp-heft: A budget- constrained resource provisioning scheme for workflow scheduling in iaas clouds. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 31:1239–1254, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2019.2961096.
K. Kalyan Chakravarthi, L. Shyamala, and V. Vaidehi. Budget-aware scheduling algorithm for workflow applications in iaas clouds. Cluster Computing, 23:3405–3419, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-020-03095-1.
J.E. Ndamlabin Mboula, V.C. Kamla, and C.T. Djamegni. Cost-time trade-off efficient workflow scheduling in cloud. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 103:102107, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2020.102107.
Z. Wen, S. Garg, G.S. Aujla, K. Alwasel, D. Puthal, S. Dustdar, A.Y. Zomaya, and R. Ranjan. Running industrial workflow applications in a software- defined multicloud environment using green energy aware scheduling algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17:5645–5656, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2020.3045690.
J.E. Ndamlabin Mboula, V.C. Kamla, and C. Tayou Djamégni. Dynamic provisioning with structure inspired selection and limitation of vms based cost- time efficient workflow scheduling in the cloud. Cluster Computing, 24:2697–2721, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-021-03289-1.
Belgacem and K. Beghdad-Bey. Multi-objective workflow scheduling in cloud computing: trade-off between makespan and cost. Cluster Computing, 25:579–595, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-021-03432-y. scheduling in iaas clouds. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2022.3195956.
M. Hariri, M. Nouri-Baygi, and S. Abrishami. A hybrid algorithm for scheduling scientific workflows in iaas cloud with deadline constraint. The Journal of Supercomputing, pages 1–22, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-022-04563-8.
S. Saeedi, R. Khorsand, S.G. Bidgoli, and M. Ramezanpour. Improved many-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm for scientific workflow scheduling in cloud computing. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 147:106649, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106649.
Kesarpu, S., & Hari Prasad Dasari. (2025). Kafka Event Sourcing for Real-Time Risk Analysis. International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.22399/ijcesen.3715
J.K. Konjaang, J. Murphy, and L. Murphy. Energy- efficient virtual-machine mapping algorithm (evima) for workflow tasks with deadlines in a cloud environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 203:103400, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2022.103400.
L. Ye, Y. Xia, S. Tao, C. Yan, R. Gao, and Y. Zhan. Reliability-aware and energy-efficient workflowscheduling in iaas clouds. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2022.3195956.
Vinod Kumar Enugala. (2025). "BIM-to-Field" Inspection Workflows for Zero Paper Sites. Utilitas Mathematica, 122(2), 372–404. Retrieved from https://utilitasmathematica.com/index.php/Index/ article/view/2711
M. Marwa, J.E. Hajlaoui, Y. Sonia, M.N. Omri, and C. Rachid. Multi-agent system-based fuzzy constraints offer negotiation of workflow scheduling in fog- cloud environment. Computing, pages 1–33, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-022-01148-4.
M. Mokni, S. Yassa, J.E. Hajlaoui, M.N. Omri, and R. Chelouah. Multi-objective fuzzy approach to scheduling and offloading workflow tasks in fog– cloud computing. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 123:102687, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2022.102687.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. Evelyn R. Chen, Dr. Adrian M. Vella (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.