Search

The benefits and opportunities offered by cloud computing are among the fastest-growing technologies in the computer industry. Additionally, it addresses the difficulties and issues that make more users more likely to accept and use the technology. The proposed research comprised of machine learning (ML) algorithms is Naïve Bayes (NB), Library Support Vector Machine (LibSVM), Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR), Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO), K Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Random Forest (RF) to compare the classifier gives better results in accuracy and less fault prediction. In this research, the secondary data results (CPU-Mem Mono) give the highest percentage of accuracy and less fault prediction on the NB classifier in terms of 80/20 (77.01%), 70/30 (76.05%), and 5 folds cross-validation (74.88%), and (CPU-Mem Multi) in terms of 80/20 (89.72%), 70/30 (90.28%), and 5 folds cross-validation (92.83%). Furthermore, on (HDD Mono) the SMO classifier gives the highest percentage of accuracy and less fault prediction fault in terms of 80/20 (87.72%), 70/30 (89.41%), and 5 folds cross-validation (88.38%), and (HDD-Multi) in terms of 80/20 (93.64%), 70/30 (90.91%), and 5 folds cross-validation (88.20%). Whereas, primary data results found RF classifier gives the highest percentage of accuracy and less fault prediction in terms of 80/20 (97.14%), 70/30 (96.19%), and 5 folds cross-validation (95.85%) in the primary data results, but the algorithm complexity (0.17 seconds) is not good. In terms of 80/20 (95.71%), 70/30 (95.71%), and 5 folds cross-validation (95.71%), SMO has the second highest accuracy and less fault prediction, but the algorithm complexity is good (0.3 seconds). The difference in accuracy and less fault prediction between RF and SMO is only (.13%), and the difference in time complexity is (14 seconds). We have decided that we will modify SMO. Finally, the Modified Sequential Minimal Optimization (MSMO) Algorithm method has been proposed to get the highest accuracy & less fault prediction errors in terms of 80/20 (96.42%), 70/30 (96.42%), & 5 fold cross validation (96.50%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]