Abstract
Internet of Things (IoT) deployments have been growing manifold, encompassing sensors, networks, edge, fog, and cloud resources. Despite the intense interest from researchers and practitioners, most do not have access to large-scale IoT testbeds for validation. Simulation environments that allow analytical modeling are a poor substitute for evaluating software platforms or application workloads in realistic computing environments. Here, we propose a virtual environment for validating Internet of Things at large scales (VIoLET), an emulator for defining and launching large-scale IoT deployments within cloud VMs. It allows users to declaratively specify container-based compute resources that match the performance of native IoT compute devices using Docker. These can be inter-connected by complex topologies on which bandwidth and latency rules are enforced. Users can configure synthetic sensors for data generation as well. We also incorporate models for CPU resource dynamism, and for failure and recovery of the underlying devices. We offer a detailed comparison of VIoLET’s compute and network performance between the virtual and physical deployments, evaluate its scaling with deployments with up to 1, 000 devices and 4, 000 device-cores, and validate its ability to model resource dynamism. Our extensive experiments show that the performance of the virtual IoT environment accurately matches the expected behavior, with deviations levels within what is seen in actual physical devices. It also scales to 1, 000s of devices and at a modest cloud computing costs of under 0.15% of the actual hardware cost, per hour of use, with minimal management effort. This IoT emulation environment fills an essential gap between IoT simulators and real deployments.
- Yogesh Simmhan, Pushkara Ravindra, Shilpa Chaturvedi, Malati Hegde, and Rashmi Ballamajalu. 2018. Towards a data-driven IoT software architecture for smart city utilities. Softw.: Pract. Exp. 48, 7 (Jul. 2018), 1390–1416. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/spe.2580Google Scholar
- Zhuo Chen, Wenlu Hu, Junjue Wang, Siyan Zhao, Brandon Amos, Guanhang Wu, Kiryong Ha, Khalid Elgazzar, Padmanabhan Pillai, Roberta Klatzky, et al. 2017. An empirical study of latency in an emerging class of edge computing applications for wearable cognitive assistance. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing. 14.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Fernando Pigatto, Mariana Rodrigues, João Vitor de Carvalho Fontes, Alex Sandro Roschildt Pinto, James Smith, and Kalinka Regina Lucas Jaquie Castelo Branco. 2018. The Internet of Flying Things. John Wiley & Sons, 529–562. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119456735.ch19Google Scholar
- Prateeksha Varshney and Yogesh Simmhan. 2020. Characterizing application scheduling on edge, fog and cloud computing resources. Softw.: Pract. Exp. 50, 5 (2020), 558–595. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/spe.2699Google ScholarCross Ref
- Flavio Bonomi, Rodolfo Milito, Jiang Zhu, and Sateesh Addepalli. 2012. Fog computing and its role in the internet of things. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Mobile Cloud Computing (MCC’12).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yogesh Simmhan, Saima Aman, Alok Kumbhare, Rongyang Liu, Sam Stevens, Qunzhi Zhou, and Viktor Prasanna. 2013. Cloud-based software platform for big data analytics in smart grids. Comput. Sci. Eng. 15, 4 (2013), 38–47. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2013.39Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mahadev Satyanarayanan et al. 2015. Edge analytics in the internet of things. IEEE Perv. Comput. 14, 2 (2015), 24–31.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcelo Yannuzzi, Frank van Lingen, Anuj Jain, Oriol Lluch Parellada, Manel Mendoza Flores, David Carrera, Juan Luis Pérez, Diego Montero, Pablo Chacin, Angelo Corsaro, et al. 2017. A new era for cities with fog computing. IEEE Internet Comput. 21, 2 (2017), 54–67.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Frank Van Lingen, Marcelo Yannuzzi, Anuj Jain, Rik Irons-Mclean, Oriol Lluch, David Carrera, Juan Luis Perez, Alberto Gutierrez, Diego Montero, Josep Marti, et al. 2017. The unavoidable convergence of NFV, 5G, and fog: A model-driven approach to bridge cloud and edge. IEEE Commun. Mag. 55, 8 (2017), 28–35.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amir Vahid Dastjerdi, Harshit Gupta, Rodrigo N. Calheiros, Soumya K. Ghosh, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2016. Fog computing: Principles, architectures, and applications. In Internet of Things: Principles and Paradigms. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Rajrup Ghosh and Yogesh Simmhan. 2018. Distributed scheduling of event analytics across edge and cloud. ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst. 2, 4 (2018), 24.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Isaac Lera, Carlos Guerrero, and Carlos Juiz. 2019. YAFS: A simulator for IoT scenarios in fog computing. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 91745–91758.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harshit Gupta, Amir Vahid Dastjerdi, Soumya K Ghosh, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2017. iFogSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of resource management techniques in the Internet of Things, Edge and Fog computing environments. Softw.: Pract. Exp. 47, 9 (2017), 1275–1296.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cagatay Sonmez, Atay Ozgovde, and Cem Ersoy. 2017. EdgeCloudSim: An environment for performance evaluation of Edge Computing systems. In Proceedings of the Fog and Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC’17).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jamie Leland. 2017. Deploy Scalable Smart City Architectures Confidently with Network Simulation. Technical Report. Insight Tech.Google Scholar
- Shreyas Badiger, Shrey Baheti, and Yogesh Simmhan. 2018. VIoLET: A large-scale virtual environment for Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the International European Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing (EuroPar’18). Distinguished Paper Award.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yu Zhang, Fei Xie, Yunwei Dong, Gang Yang, and Xingshe Zhou. 2013. High fidelity virtualization of cyber-physical systems. Int. J. Model. Simul. Sci. Comput. 4, 02 (2013), 1340005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Baobing Wang and John S. Baras. 2013. Hybridsim: A modeling and co-simulation toolchain for cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications. 33–40.Google Scholar
- Daniele Antonioli and Nils Ole Tippenhauer. 2015. MiniCPS: A toolkit for security research on CPS networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Cyber-physical Systems-security and/or Privacy. 91–100.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arbab Waseem Abbas and Safdar Nawaz Khan Marwat. 2020. Scalable emulated framework for IoT devices in smart logistics based cyber-physical systems: Bonded coverage and connectivity analysis. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 138350–138372.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Krajzewicz, Jakob Erdmann, Michael Behrisch, and Laura Bieker. 2012. Recent development and applications of SUMO-Simulation of Urban MObility. Int. J. Adv. Syst. Meas. 5, 3&4 (2012).Google Scholar
- Johannes Meyer, Alexander Sendobry, Stefan Kohlbrecher, Uwe Klingauf, and Oskar Von Stryk. 2012. Comprehensive simulation of quadrotor uavs using ros and gazebo. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation, Modeling, and Programming for Autonomous Robots.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alli Mäkinen, Jaime Jiménez, and Roberto Morabito. 2017. ELIoT: Design of an emulated IoT platform. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC’17). 1–7.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Docker Inc. 2019. Docker Resource Constraints. Retrieved from https://docs.docker.com/config/containers/resource_constraints/.Google Scholar
- Embedded Microprocessor Benchmark Consortium (EEMBC). 2017. CoreMark v1.0. Retrieved from http://coremark.org.Google Scholar
- Roy Longbottom. 2019. Whetstone Benchmark History and Results. Retrieved from http://www.roylongbottom.org.uk/whetstone.htm.Google Scholar
- Jack J. Dongarra, Piotr Luszczek, and Antoine Petitet. 2003. The LINPACK benchmark: Past, present and future. Concurr. Comput.: Pract. Exp. 15, 9 (2003), 803–820.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin A. Brown. 2019. Traffic Control in Linux, v1.0.2. Retrieved from https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Traffic-Control-HOWTO/.Google Scholar
- Docker Inc. 2019. Multi-host Networking with Standalone Swarms. Retrieved from https://docs.docker.com/network/overlay-standalone.swarm/.Google Scholar
- 2020. ns-3 Manual: A Discrete-Event Network Simulator. Technical Report. University of Washington NS-3 Consortium.Google Scholar
- Bob Lantz, Brandon Heller, and Nick McKeown. 2010. A network in a Laptop: Rapid prototyping for software-defined networks. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks.Google ScholarDigital Library
- George Karypis and Vipin Kumar. 1998. A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 20, 1 (1998), 359–392.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pushkara Ravindra, Aakash Khochare, Siva Prakash Reddy, Sarthak Sharma, Prateeksha Varshney, and Yogesh Simmhan. 2017. ECHO: An adaptive orchestration platform for hybrid dataflows across cloud and edge. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing. Springer, 395–410.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miklós Maróti, Tamás Kecskés, Róbert Kereskényi, Brian Broll, Péter Völgyesi, László Jurácz, Tihamer Levendovszky, and Ákos Lédeczi. 2014. Next generation (meta) modeling: Web-and cloud-based collaborative tool infrastructure. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multi-Paradigm Modeling and Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MPM@ MoDELS’14). 41–60.Google Scholar
- Microsoft. 2019. NTTTCP-for-Linux, A Linux Network Throughput Multiple-thread Benchmark Tool. Retrieved from https://github.com/Microsoft/ntttcp-for-linux.Google Scholar
- Van Jacobson. 1988. Congestion avoidance and control. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 18. ACM, 314–329.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Perez Abreu, Karima Velasquez, Marilia Curado, and Edmundo Monteiro. 2020. A comparative analysis of simulators for the Cloud to Fog continuum. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 101 (2020), 102029.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maxim Chernyshev, Zubair Baig, Oladayo Bello, and Sherali Zeadally. 2017. Internet of things (iot): Research, simulators, and testbeds. IEEE IoT J. 5, 3 (2017), 1637–1647.Google Scholar
- Rodrigo N. Calheiros, Rajiv Ranjan, Anton Beloglazov, César A. F. De Rose, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2011. CloudSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms. Softw.: Pract. Exp. 41, 1 (2011), 23–50.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carlo Puliafito, Diogo M. Gonçalves, Márcio M. Lopes, Leonardo L. Martins, Edmundo Madeira, Enzo Mingozzi, Omer Rana, and Luiz F. Bittencourt. 2020. MobFogSim: Simulation of mobility and migration for fog computing. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 101 (2020), 102062.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fredrik Osterlind, Adam Dunkels, Joakim Eriksson, Niclas Finne, and Thiemo Voigt. 2006. Cross-level sensor network simulation with COOJA. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks. 641–648.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas R. Henderson, Sumit Roy, Sally Floyd, and George F. Riley. 2006. Ns-3 project goals. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ns-2: The IP Network Simulator.Google Scholar
- Werner Kritzinger, Matthias Karner, Georg Traar, Jan Henjes, and Wilfried Sihn. 2018. Digital twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classification. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 11 (2018), 1016–1022.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marietheres Dietz and Günther Pernul. 2020. Digital twin: Empowering enterprises towards a system-of-systems approach. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 62, 2 (2020), 179–184.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin Arlitt, Manish Marwah, Gowtham Bellala, Amip Shah, Jeff Healey, and Ben Vandiver. 2015. IoTAbench: An Internet of Things analytics benchmark. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE’15).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ling Gu, Minqi Zhou, Zhenjie Zhang, Ming-Chien Shan, Aoying Zhou, and Marianne Winslett. 2015. Chronos: An elastic parallel framework for stream benchmark generation and simulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE’15).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brendan Burns, Brian Grant, David Oppenheimer, Eric Brewer, and John Wilkes. 2016. Borg, omega, and kubernetes. ACM Queue 14, 1 (2016).Google Scholar
- Uchechukwu Awada and Adam Barker. 2017. Improving resource efficiency of container-instance clusters on clouds. In Proceedings of the Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGRID’17).Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- VIoLET: An Emulation Environment for Validating IoT Deployments at Large Scales
Recommendations
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 ...
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 ...
Cloud, Fog, or Mist in IoT? That Is the Question
Special Issue on Fog, Edge, and Cloud IntegrationInternet 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 (...
Comments