pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.09182 · v1 · pith:GIX5CWZ6new · submitted 2019-06-21 · 💻 cs.DC

VM Image Repository and Distribution Models for Federated Clouds: State of the Art, Possible Directions and Open Issues

Nishant Saurabh , Dragi Kimovski , Simon Ostermann , Radu Prodan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 18:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC
keywords federated cloudsVM imagesimage repositorydistribution modelsvirtual machine provisioningQoSvirtualization
0
0 comments X

The pith

The architecture of virtual machine image repositories and their distribution policies controls the speed and quality of service for provisioning VMs across federated cloud providers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This survey examines how virtual machine images are stored and shared in federated cloud environments where multiple providers collaborate to deliver infrastructure services. It argues that efficient repository design and distribution strategies are essential for quickly creating VMs from user templates while meeting performance requirements. The authors review existing systems, compare representative platforms, and map out a design space to reveal shortcomings in current approaches. They highlight open challenges in scaling these systems for large collaborative infrastructures.

Core claim

The rapid provisioning of VMs with varying user requests ensuring Quality of Service (QoS) across multiple cloud providers largely depends upon the image repository architecture and distribution policies.

What carries the argument

VMI storage repository architecture and distribution mechanisms, which enable rapid provisioning of VMs from user templates across multiple providers.

If this is right

  • Better repository architectures would allow faster instantiation of VMs from user templates in multi-provider environments.
  • Improved distribution policies would support consistent quality-of-service guarantees when resources are spread across different clouds.
  • Mapping the design space would guide development of more scalable and interoperable image management solutions.
  • Addressing identified limitations would reduce delays in collaborative cloud services for varying user demands.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Adoption of a common design space could lead to standardized interfaces that simplify integration between different cloud providers.
  • The identified trends suggest potential extensions to dynamic image caching techniques that adapt to real-time workload changes.
  • These models could be tested in hybrid setups combining public and private clouds to measure actual provisioning improvements.

Load-bearing premise

The representative systems selected for comparison and the design space defined are sufficient to identify the main current limitations and open trends in VMI repositories for federated clouds.

What would settle it

A new VMI repository system that achieves high QoS provisioning across federated clouds without fitting into the defined design space or addressing the identified limitations would challenge the survey's conclusions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.09182 by Dragi Kimovski, Nishant Saurabh, Radu Prodan, Simon Ostermann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Glance Architecture 2.2 OpenStack Glance Glance8 in general, is a middleware service enabling users to upload indepen￾dent data assets including VMI. In particular, glance image service provisions various functionalities including discovering, registering and retrieving images. In order to provide respository based service, federation of storage systems are attached. These storage systems with varying capa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: AWS VM Image Services depicting creation and Upload of amazon in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The emerging trend of Federated Cloud models enlist virtualization as a significant concept to offer a large scale distributed Infrastructure as a Service collaborative paradigm to end users. Virtualization leverage Virtual Machines (VM) instantiated from user specific templates labelled as VM Images (VMI). To this extent, the rapid provisioning of VMs with varying user requests ensuring Quality of Service (QoS) across multiple cloud providers largely depends upon the image repository architecture and distribution policies. We discuss the possible state-of-art in VMI storage repository and distribution mechanisms for efficient VM provisioning in federated clouds. In addition, we present and compare various representative systems in this realm. Furthermore, we define a design space, identify current limitations, challenges and open trends for VMI repositories and distribution techniques within federated infrastructure.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper surveys VM Image (VMI) repository architectures and distribution mechanisms for federated clouds. It claims that rapid VM provisioning ensuring QoS across providers depends on these architectures and policies; it discusses state-of-the-art approaches, compares representative systems, defines a design space, and identifies current limitations, challenges, and open trends.

Significance. A well-executed survey in this area could help researchers navigate VMI management challenges in federated settings and guide future work on provisioning efficiency. The manuscript follows a standard survey structure but provides no evidence of systematic coverage, limiting its value as a reliable map of the field.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] Abstract and introduction: no literature search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or justification is provided for the choice of representative systems or the dimensions of the design space. This directly affects the central claim that the surveyed systems and identified limitations represent the state of the art rather than an arbitrary or incomplete sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and the opportunity to clarify the survey's methodology. We address the major comment below and propose targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract/Introduction] Abstract and introduction: no literature search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or justification is provided for the choice of representative systems or the dimensions of the design space. This directly affects the central claim that the surveyed systems and identified limitations represent the state of the art rather than an arbitrary or incomplete sample.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of greater transparency. This survey is structured as a narrative review identifying key architectures and trends rather than a formal systematic literature review. Representative systems were chosen for their coverage of distinct repository models (centralized, peer-to-peer, and hybrid) and their prominence in addressing federated-cloud provisioning challenges, as reflected in their publication venues and subsequent citations. The design-space dimensions were derived inductively from recurring technical issues across the examined works. In revision we will add an explicit paragraph in the introduction that states the selection rationale, lists the primary sources consulted, and explains how the dimensions emerged from the analysis. This will support the state-of-the-art claim without converting the paper into a PRISMA-style systematic review. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: literature survey without derivations or predictions

full rationale

The paper is a survey reviewing state-of-the-art VMI repository architectures and distribution mechanisms for federated clouds. It compares representative systems and defines a design space to identify limitations, but contains no equations, mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems. All claims rest on external literature citations rather than self-referential reductions. No load-bearing steps reduce to inputs by construction, satisfying the criteria for a non-circular finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a survey paper. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced by the authors; the content rests entirely on synthesis of cited prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5669 in / 1015 out tokens · 24363 ms · 2026-05-25T18:35:16.271878+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Freimuth, V

    D.M. Freimuth, V. Pappas, and S. Sathaye. Virtual machine image distribution network. January 9 2014. US Patent App. 13/542,421

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Vdn: Virtual machine image distribution network for cloud data centers

    Chunyi Peng, Minkyong Kim, Zhe Zhang, and Hui Lei. Vdn: Virtual machine image distribution network for cloud data centers. In Albert G. Greenberg and Kazem Sohraby, editors, INFOCOM, pages 181189. IEEE, 2012. 12 http://www.entice-project.eu/ 12 Nishant Saurabh,Dragi Kimovski, Simon Ostermann, Radu Prodan

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Efficient distribution of virtual machines for cloud computing

    Matthias Schmidt, Niels Fallenbeck, Matthew Smith, and Bernd Freisleben. Efficient distribution of virtual machines for cloud computing. In Proceedings of the 2010 18th Euromicro Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network based Processing, PDP 10, pages 567574, Washington, DC, USA, 2010. IEEE Computer Society

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Image distribution mechanisms in large scale cloud providers

    Romain Wartel, Tony Cass, Belmiro Moreira, Ewan Roche, Manuel Guijarro, Se- bastien Goasguen, and Ulrich Schwickerath. Image distribution mechanisms in large scale cloud providers. In CloudCom, pages 112-117. IEEE Computer Society, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    On p2p mechanisms for vm image distribution in cloud data centers: Modeling, analysis and improve- ment

    Di Wu, Yupeng Zeng, Jian He, Yi Liang, and Yonggang Wen. On p2p mechanisms for vm image distribution in cloud data centers: Modeling, analysis and improve- ment. In CloudCom, pages 5057. IEEE Computer Society, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Placek and R

    M. Placek and R. Buyya. A Taxonomy of Distributed Storage Systems, www.cloudbus.org/reports/DistributedStorageTaxonomy.pdf

    work page

  7. [7]

    Qos metrics for cloud com- puting services evaluation

    Amid Khatibi Bardsiri and Seyyed Mohsen Hashemi. Qos metrics for cloud com- puting services evaluation. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Appli- cations (IJISA),2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Iosup, R

    A. Iosup, R. Prodan and D. Epema. IaaS Cloud Benchmarking: Approaches, Chal- lenges, and Experience. In Proc. of 5th Workshop on Many-Task Computing on Grids and Supercomputers (MTAGS) 2012

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Santoni, Fernando C

    Rich Uhlig, Gil Neiger, Dion Rodgers, Amy L. Santoni, Fernando C. M. Martins, Andrew V. Anderson, Steven M. Bennett, Alain Kagi, Felix H. Leung and Larry Smith. Intel Virtualization Technology. Computer, v.38 n.5, p.48-56, May 2005

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Critical analysis of vendor lock-in and its impact on cloud computing migration : a business perspective

    Justice Opara-Martins, Reza Sahandi and Feng Tian. Critical analysis of vendor lock-in and its impact on cloud computing migration : a business perspective. J. Cloud Comput. 5, 1, Article 54 (December 2016), 18 pages

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Carrin, G

    J.V. Carrin, G. Molt, C. De Alfonso, M. Caballer, and V. Hernndez. A Generic Catalog and Repository Service for Virtual Machine Images. In 2nd International ICST Conference on Cloud Computing (CloudComp 2010)

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    Dana , P

    P. Dana , P. Silviu , N. Marian , F. Marc and Z. Daniela. Earth observation data processing in distributedsystems. Informatica, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 463-476, 2010

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Developing Interoperable and Federated Cloud Architecture

    Kecskemeti, Gabor, Attila Kertesz, and Zsolt Nemeth. Developing Interoperable and Federated Cloud Architecture. IGI Global, 2016. 1-398. Web. 15 May. 2016. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0153-4

    work page doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0153-4 2016

  14. [14]

    Aguilera, R

    M.K. Aguilera, R. Janakiraman, L. Xu. Using erasure codes e fficiently for storage in a distributed system. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, DSN 05, pages 336345, Washington, DC, USA,

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    IEEE Computer Society

    work page

  16. [16]

    von Laszewski, F

    Diaz, G. von Laszewski, F. Wang, A. Younge, and G. Fox. Futuregrid Image repos- itory: A Generic catalog and Storage System for Heterogenous Virtual Machine Images. Third IEEE International Conference on Coud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom2011), 2011

    work page 2011