skip to main content
research-article

VIoLET: An Emulation Environment for Validating IoT Deployments at Large Scales

Published:11 July 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Mahadev Satyanarayanan et al. 2015. Edge analytics in the internet of things. IEEE Perv. Comput. 14, 2 (2015), 24–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Isaac Lera, Carlos Guerrero, and Carlos Juiz. 2019. YAFS: A simulator for IoT scenarios in fog computing. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 91745–91758.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jamie Leland. 2017. Deploy Scalable Smart City Architectures Confidently with Network Simulation. Technical Report. Insight Tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Docker Inc. 2019. Docker Resource Constraints. Retrieved from https://docs.docker.com/config/containers/resource_constraints/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Embedded Microprocessor Benchmark Consortium (EEMBC). 2017. CoreMark v1.0. Retrieved from http://coremark.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Roy Longbottom. 2019. Whetstone Benchmark History and Results. Retrieved from http://www.roylongbottom.org.uk/whetstone.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Martin A. Brown. 2019. Traffic Control in Linux, v1.0.2. Retrieved from https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Traffic-Control-HOWTO/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Docker Inc. 2019. Multi-host Networking with Standalone Swarms. Retrieved from https://docs.docker.com/network/overlay-standalone.swarm/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 2020. ns-3 Manual: A Discrete-Event Network Simulator. Technical Report. University of Washington NS-3 Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Microsoft. 2019. NTTTCP-for-Linux, A Linux Network Throughput Multiple-thread Benchmark Tool. Retrieved from https://github.com/Microsoft/ntttcp-for-linux.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Jacobson. 1988. Congestion avoidance and control. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 18. ACM, 314–329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Brendan Burns, Brian Grant, David Oppenheimer, Eric Brewer, and John Wilkes. 2016. Borg, omega, and kubernetes. ACM Queue 14, 1 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. VIoLET: An Emulation Environment for Validating IoT Deployments at Large Scales

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in

              Full Access

              • Published in

                cover image ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems
                ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems  Volume 5, Issue 3
                July 2021
                296 pages
                ISSN:2378-962X
                EISSN:2378-9638
                DOI:10.1145/3458848
                • Editor:
                • Chenyang Lu
                Issue’s Table of Contents

                Copyright © 2021 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 11 July 2021
                • Accepted: 1 December 2020
                • Revised: 1 November 2020
                • Received: 1 March 2020
                Published in tcps Volume 5, Issue 3

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article
                • Research
                • Refereed

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader

              HTML Format

              View this article in HTML Format .

              View HTML Format