Adaptive Cloud Orchestration: Mitigating Cold-Start Latency and Optimizing Cost-Performance Trade-offs in Kubernetes via Reinforcement Learning and Ansible Integration
Keywords:
Reinforcement Learning, Cloud Auto-scaling, Ansible, Cold-Start LatencyAbstract
The rapid proliferation of microservices architectures has established Kubernetes as the de facto standard for container orchestration. However, efficient auto-scaling remains a persistent challenge, particularly when balancing strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) against the operational expenditures of cloud infrastructure. Traditional rule-based scaling mechanisms, such as the Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA), often exhibit reactive latency, leading to "cold-start" delays during traffic bursts and resource over-provisioning during idle periods. This paper proposes a novel, hybrid orchestration framework that integrates Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) with Ansible-based configuration management to optimize the dynamic scaling of Azure PaaS environments. By treating the scaling problem as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), we develop a Q-learning agent capable of predicting workload fluctuations and preemptively provisioning resources. Furthermore, we leverage Ansible playbooks to parallelize node initialization, significantly reducing the initialization time of transient Virtual Machines (VMs). Our experimental results demonstrate that this approach reduces cold-start latency by approximately 40% and operational costs by 22% compared to standard reactive scaling methods, offering a robust solution for mixed interactive and batch workloads in enterprise environments.
Downloads
References
1. Sai Nikhil Donthi. (2025). Ansible-Based End-To-End Dynamic Scaling on Azure Paas for Refinery Turnarounds: Cold-Start Latency and Cost–Performance Trade-Offs. Frontiers in Emerging Computer Science and Information Technology, 2(11), 01–17.
2. K. Hightower, B. Burns, and J. Beda. Kubernetes: Up and Running Dive into the Future of Infrastructure. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 1st edition, 2017.
3. S. Horovitz and Y. Arian. Efficient cloud auto-scaling with sla objective using qlearning. In 2018 IEEE 6th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), pages 85–92. IEEE, 2018.
4. J. Huang, C. Xiao, and W. Wu. Rlsk: A job scheduler for federated kubernetes clusters based on reinforcement learning. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), pages 116–123. IEEE, 2020.
5. J. Humble and D. Farley. Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2010.
6. M. Karamollahi and C. Williamson. Characterization of IMAPS email traffic. In 27th IEEE International Symposium on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems, MASCOTS 2019, Rennes, France, October 21-25, 2019, pages 214–220. IEEE Computer Society, 2019.
7. T. Lorido-Botran, J. Miguel-Alonso, and J. A. Lozano. A review of auto-scaling techniques for elastic applications in cloud environments. Journal of grid computing, 12(4):559–592, 2014.
8. OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0, January 2011.
9. Tesliuk, S. Bobkov, V. Ilyin, A. Novikov, A. Poyda, and V. Velikhov, “Kubernetes container orchestration as a framework for flexible and effective scientific data analysis,” Kubernetes Container Orchestration as a Framework for Flexible and Effective Scientific Data Analysis, pp. 67–71, Dec. 2019.
10. F. Antonescu, P. Robinson, and T. Braun, “Dynamic topology orchestration for distributed Cloud-Based applications,” Dynamic Topology Orchestration for Distributed Cloud-Based Applications, pp. 116–123, Dec. 2012.
11. D. Kim, H. Muhammad, E. Kim, S. Helal, and C. Lee, “TOSCA-Based and Federation-Aware cloud orchestration for Kubernetes container platform,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 191, Jan. 2019.
12. E. A. Brewer, “Kubernetes and the path to Cloud Native,” Kubernetes and the Path to Cloud Native, Aug. 2015.
13. Q. Lei, W. Liao, Y. Jiang, M. Yang, and H. Li, “Performance and Scalability Testing Strategy based on KubeMark,” Performance and Scalability Testing Strategy Based on Kubemark, Apr. 2019.
14. Q. Li, G. Yin, T. Wang, and Y. Yu, “Building a Cloud-Ready program,” Building a Cloud-Ready Program, pp. 159–164, Jun. 2018.
15. K. Peters et al., “PhenoMeNal: processing and analysis of metabolomics data in the cloud,” GigaScience, vol. 8, no. 2, Dec. 2018.
16. L. Toka, G. Dobreff, B. Fodor, and B. Sonkoly, “Machine Learning-Based scaling Management for Kubernetes edge clusters,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 958–972, Mar. 2021.
17. P. Ambati and D. Irwin, “Optimizing the cost of executing mixed interactive and batch workloads on transient VMs,” Optimizing the Cost of Executing Mixed Interactive and Batch Workloads on Transient VMs, pp. 45–46, Jun. 2019.
18. B. Burns, B. Grant, D. Oppenheimer, E. Brewer, and J. Wilkes, “Borg, Omega, and Kubernetes,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 50–57, Apr. 2016.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. A. Vance and J. Sterling

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.