4.6 Article

Resource Prediction-Based Edge Collaboration Scheme for Improving QoE

期刊

SENSORS
卷 21, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s21248500

关键词

Internet of Things (IoT); edge computing; mobile edge computing (MEC); computation offloading

资金

  1. Institute for Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) - Korea government (MSIT) [2020-0-00998]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An edge collaboration scheme based on resource prediction is proposed to improve QoE by estimating computing resource usage, probabilistically collaborating with other edge servers, and achieving high success rate and low completion time.
Recent years have witnessed a growth in the Internet of Things (IoT) applications and devices; however, these devices are unable to meet the increased computational resource needs of the applications they host. Edge servers can provide sufficient computing resources. However, when the number of connected devices is large, the task processing efficiency decreases due to limited computing resources. Therefore, an edge collaboration scheme that utilizes other computing nodes to increase the efficiency of task processing and improve the quality of experience (QoE) was proposed. However, existing edge server collaboration schemes have low QoE because they do not consider other edge servers' computing resources or communication time. In this paper, we propose a resource prediction-based edge collaboration scheme for improving QoE. We estimate computing resource usage based on the tasks received from the devices. According to the predicted computing resources, the edge server probabilistically collaborates with other edge servers. The proposed scheme is based on the delay model, and uses the greedy algorithm. It allocates computing resources to the task considering the computation and buffering time. Experimental results show that the proposed scheme achieves a high QoE compared with existing schemes because of the high success rate and low completion time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据