Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) has been commercially explored as Platforms as a Services (PaaS). The standard solution for this kind of service is to combine the Cloud computing infrastructure with IoT software, services, and protocols also known as CoT (Cloud of Things). However, the use of CoT in latency-sensitive applications has been shown to be unfeasible due to the inherent latency of cloud computing services. One proposal to solve this problem is the use of the computational resources available at the edge of the network, which is called Fog computing. Fog computing solves the problem of latency but adds complexity to the use of these resources due to the dynamism and heterogeneity of the IoT. An even more accentuated form of fog computing is Mist computing, where the use of the computational resources is limited to the close neighborhood of the client device. The decision of what computing infrastructure (Fog, Mist, or Cloud computing) is the best to provide computational resources is not always simple, especially in cases where latency requirements should be met by CoT. This work proposes an algorithm for selecting the best physical infrastructure to use the computational resource (Fog, Mist, or Cloud computing) based on cost, bandwidth, and latency criteria defined by the client device, resource availability, and topology of the network. The article also introduces the concept of feasible Fog that limits the growth of device search time in the neighborhood of the client device. Simulation results suggest the algorithm’s choice adequately attends the client’s device requirements and that the proposed method can be used in IoT environment located on the edge of the network.
- R. Khan, S. U. Khan, R. Zaheer, and S. Khan. 2012. Future internet: The internet of things architecture, possible applications and key challenges. In Proceedings of the 2012 10th International Conference FIT. IEEE, 257--260. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Aazam and E. N. Huh. 2016. Fog computing: The cloud-IoT/IoE middleware paradigm. IEEE Potent. 35, 3 (May 2016), 40--44.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shanhe Yi, Zijiang Hao, Zhengrui Qin, and Qun Li. 2015. Fog computing: Platform and applications. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Workshop on Hot Topics in Web Systems and Technologies (HotWeb’15). 73--78. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Vasconcelos, F. L. R. Pimentel, R. M. C. Andrade, and J. N. Souza. 2017. Mathematical model for a collaborative indoor position system (IPS) and movement detection of devices within IoT environment. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’17). ACM, New York, NY, 602--608. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Yi, Z. Hao, Z. Qin, and Q. Li. 2015. Fog computing: Platform and applications. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Workshop on Hot Topics in Web Systems and Technologies (HotWeb’15). IEEE, 73--78. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Pflanzner and A. Kertesz. 2016. A survey of IoT cloud providers. In Proceedings of the 39th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO’16). IEEE, 730--735.Google Scholar
- Flavio Bonomi, Rodolfo Milito, Jiang Zhu, and Sateesh Addepalli. 2012. Fog computing and its role in the internet of things. In Proceedings of the 1st Edition of the MCC Workshop on Mobile Cloud Computing (MCC’12). ACM, New York, NY, 13--16. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. d. Vasconcelos, R. M. d. C. Andrade, and J. N. d. Souza. 2015. Smart shadow—An autonomous availability computation resource allocation platform for internet of things in the fog computing environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS’15). IEEE, 216--217. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Bruneo, S. Distefano, F. Longo, G. Merlino, A. Puliafito, V. D’Amico, M. Sapienza, and G. Torrisi. 2016. Stack4Things as a fog computing platform for smart city applications. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM’16). IEEE, 848--853.Google Scholar
- Filipe Saraiva, Aldir Sousa, and Eduardo Asada. 2011. Implementação Distribuída do Algoritmo de Dijkstra Através de Sistemas Multiagentes. In Proceedings of the Anais do 10th Simpósio Brasileiro de Automação Inteligente. 51--56. Retrieved from http://www.sbai2011.ufsj.edu.br.Google Scholar
- Sudip Misra Subhadeep Sarkar. 2016. Theoretical modelling of fog computing: A green computing paradigm to support IoT applications. IET Netw. 5 (Mar. 2016), 23--29(6).Google Scholar
- L. M. Vaquero and L. Rodero-Merino. 2014. Finding your way in the fog: Towards a comprehensive definition of fog computing. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 44, 5 (Oct. 2014), 27--32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. S. Preden, K. Tammemae, A. Jantsch, M. Leier, A. Riid, and E. Calis. 2015. The benefits of self-awareness and attention in fog and mist computing. Computer 48, 7 (July 2015), 37--45.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. Shi, N. Chen, and R. Deters. 2015. Combining mobile and fog computing: Using CoAP to link mobile device clouds with fog computing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Systems (DSS’15). IEEE, 564--571. Google ScholarDigital Library
- X. Masip-Bruin, E. Marín-Tordera, G. Tashakor, A. Jukan, and G. J. Ren. 2016. Foggy clouds and cloudy fogs: A real need for coordinated management of fog-to-cloud computing systems. IEEE Wireless Commun. 23, 5 (Oct. 2016), 120--128. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlos Pereira, António Pinto, Duarte Ferreira, and Ana Aguiar. 2017. Experimental characterization of mobile iot application latency. IEEE IoT J. 4, 4 (2017), 1082--1094.Google Scholar
- K. Dolui and S. K. Datta. 2017. Comparison of edge computing implementations: Fog computing, cloudlet and mobile edge computing. In Proceedings of the Global IoT Summit (GIoTS’17). IEEE, 1--6.Google Scholar
- Mohammad Aazam, Marc St-Hilaire, Chung-Horng Lung, and Ioannis Lambadaris. 2016. Pre-fog: IoT trace-based probabilistic resource estimation at fog. In Proceedings of the 13th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications 8 Networking Conference (CCNC’16). IEEE, 12--17.Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Deng, R. Lu, C. Lai, T. H. Luan, and H. Liang. 2016. Optimal workload allocation in fog-cloud computing towards balanced delay and power consumption. IEEE IoT J. 3, 6 (2016), 1171--1181.Google Scholar
- V. B. C. Souza, W. Ramírez, X. Masip-Bruin, E. Marín-Tordera, G. Ren, and G. Tashakor. 2016. Handling service allocation in combined Fog-cloud scenarios. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’16). IEEE, 1--5.Google Scholar
- Xuan-Qui Pham and Eui-Nam Huh. 2016. Towards task scheduling in a cloud-fog computing system. In Proceeedings of the 18th Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS’16). IEEE, 1--4.Google Scholar
- Adrian Klein, Fuyuki Ishikawa, and Shinichi Honiden. 2012. Towards network-aware service composition in the cloud. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW’12). ACM, IEEE, 959--968. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shangguang Wang, Ao Zhou, Fangchun Yang, and Rong N. Chang. 2016. Towards network-aware service composition in the cloud. IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. (2016).Google Scholar
- N. J. Yadwadkar, B. Hariharan, J. E Gonzalez, B. Smith, and R. H. Katz. 2017. Selecting the best vm across multiple public clouds: A data-driven performance modeling approach. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC’17). ACM, ACM, 452--465. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shangguang Wang, Yali Zhao, Lin Huang, Jinliang Xu, and Ching-Hsien Hsu. 2017. QoS prediction for service recommendations in mobile edge computing. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. (2017).Google Scholar
- Tao Lei, Shangguang Wang, Jinglin Li, and Fangchun Yang. 2016. AOM: Adaptive mobile data traffic offloading for M2M networks. Person. Ubiq. Comput. 20, 6 (2016), 863--873. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mohammad Aazam and Eui-Nam Huh. 2015. Fog computing microdatacenter-based dynamic resource estimation and pricing model for IoT. In Proceedings of the IEEE 29th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA’15). IEEE, IEEE, 687--694.Google Scholar
- B. Awerbuch. 1985. A new distributed depth-first-search algorithm. Info. Process. Lett. 20, 3 (1985), 147--150.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adam Dunkels, Bjorn Gronvall, and Thiemo Voigt. 2004. Contiki—A lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE Local Computer Networks International Conference (LCN’04). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 455--462. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Cloud, Fog, or Mist in IoT? That Is the Question
Recommendations
All one needs to know about fog computing and related edge computing paradigms: A complete survey
AbstractWith the Internet of Things (IoT) becoming part of our daily life and our environment, we expect rapid growth in the number of connected devices. IoT is expected to connect billions of devices and humans to bring promising advantages ...
A Pattern for Fog Computing
VikingPLoP '16: Proceedings of the 10th Travelling Conference on Pattern Languages of ProgramsFog Computing is a new variety of the cloud computing paradigm that brings virtualized cloud services to the edge of the network to control the devices in the IoT. We present a pattern for fog computing which describes its architecture, including its ...
Machine learning techniques in emerging cloud computing integrated paradigms: A survey and taxonomy
AbstractCloud computing offers Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS) to provide compute, network, and storage capabilities to the clients utilizing the pay-per-use model. On the ...
Comments