4.5 Article

Design and evaluation of a fog platform supporting device mobility through container migration

期刊

PERVASIVE AND MOBILE COMPUTING
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2021.101415

关键词

Fog computing; Edge computing; Internet of Things; Mobility; Container migration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The integration of Internet of Things (IoT) and fog computing opens up a plethora of applications, with low latency being a key advantage brought by fog computing. However, IoT device mobility can jeopardize this advantage, and migrating fog services to support device mobility can help maintain low latency. Results from experiments show promising average round-trip latency between mobile devices and fog layer, with minimal occurrences of latency exceeding application limits.
The integration between the Internet of Things (IoT) and fog computing can pave the way to a plethora of applications. Fog computing indeed allows IoT devices to offload complex tasks to computing resources, known as fog nodes, that are in their proximity (e.g., at the network edge). Fog proximity enables important advantages, first and foremost low latency. However, IoT device mobility endangers those advantages, as the IoT device gets farther away from the serving fog node. Migrating the fog service among fog nodes, following the device route, permits to maintain proximity and preserve low latency. In this work, we propose an OpenStack-based platform that implements a fog service as a container and migrates the latter to support device mobility. We performed experiments over a real testbed to: (i) evaluate the impact of hardware resources of fog nodes on migration performance; (ii) validate our platform. Results are encouraging, as the average round-trip latency between the mobile device and the fog layer was as low as 10 ms and exceeded the maximum value allowed by the considered application (i.e., 20 ms) in 1.5% of the experiment duration. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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