Cloud, Fog, or Mist in IoT? That Is the Question
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 latenc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | ACM transactions on Internet technology 2019-05, Vol.19 (2), p.1-20 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 20 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | ACM transactions on Internet technology |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Vasconcelos, D. R. Andrade, R. M. C. Severino, V. Souza, J. N. De |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1145/3309709 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1145_3309709</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1145_3309709</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c155t-388c8b3ec19b6d4a0a6e2faf18e030ab26d453e6340ce6a037a2a03b4a9e8d123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotj8FLwzAYxYMoOKf4L-TmZdXv69ekyUmkuFmYjEE9lzRNXWUukmQH_3s73OW9xzu8x4-xe4RHxEI8EYEuQV-wGQpRZhIEXp4yUSZI62t2E-MXAAqJNGNQ7f2xX_Cl_1xwH_j7GBMfD7z2zTNvdibxOvK0c3x7dDGN_nDLrgazj-7u7HP2sXxtqrdsvVnV1cs6s9NtykgpqzpyFnUn-8KAkS4fzIDKAYHp8qkU5CQVYJ00QKXJJ-0Ko53qMac5e_jftcHHGNzQ_oTx24TfFqE9gbZnUPoDYWlCNQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cloud, Fog, or Mist in IoT? That Is the Question</title><source>ACM Digital Library Complete</source><creator>Vasconcelos, D. R. ; Andrade, R. M. C. ; Severino, V. ; Souza, J. N. De</creator><creatorcontrib>Vasconcelos, D. R. ; Andrade, R. M. C. ; Severino, V. ; Souza, J. N. De</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1533-5399</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1557-6051</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1145/3309709</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>ACM transactions on Internet technology, 2019-05, Vol.19 (2), p.1-20</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c155t-388c8b3ec19b6d4a0a6e2faf18e030ab26d453e6340ce6a037a2a03b4a9e8d123</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c155t-388c8b3ec19b6d4a0a6e2faf18e030ab26d453e6340ce6a037a2a03b4a9e8d123</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1035-2275 ; 0000-0002-6393-8747 ; 0000-0002-0186-2994 ; 0000-0001-7188-9853</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vasconcelos, D. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrade, R. M. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Severino, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Souza, J. N. De</creatorcontrib><title>Cloud, Fog, or Mist in IoT? That Is the Question</title><title>ACM transactions on Internet technology</title><description>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.</description><issn>1533-5399</issn><issn>1557-6051</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotj8FLwzAYxYMoOKf4L-TmZdXv69ekyUmkuFmYjEE9lzRNXWUukmQH_3s73OW9xzu8x4-xe4RHxEI8EYEuQV-wGQpRZhIEXp4yUSZI62t2E-MXAAqJNGNQ7f2xX_Cl_1xwH_j7GBMfD7z2zTNvdibxOvK0c3x7dDGN_nDLrgazj-7u7HP2sXxtqrdsvVnV1cs6s9NtykgpqzpyFnUn-8KAkS4fzIDKAYHp8qkU5CQVYJ00QKXJJ-0Ko53qMac5e_jftcHHGNzQ_oTx24TfFqE9gbZnUPoDYWlCNQ</recordid><startdate>20190531</startdate><enddate>20190531</enddate><creator>Vasconcelos, D. R.</creator><creator>Andrade, R. M. C.</creator><creator>Severino, V.</creator><creator>Souza, J. N. De</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1035-2275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6393-8747</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0186-2994</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7188-9853</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190531</creationdate><title>Cloud, Fog, or Mist in IoT? That Is the Question</title><author>Vasconcelos, D. R. ; Andrade, R. M. C. ; Severino, V. ; Souza, J. N. De</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c155t-388c8b3ec19b6d4a0a6e2faf18e030ab26d453e6340ce6a037a2a03b4a9e8d123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vasconcelos, D. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andrade, R. M. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Severino, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Souza, J. N. De</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>ACM transactions on Internet technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vasconcelos, D. R.</au><au>Andrade, R. M. C.</au><au>Severino, V.</au><au>Souza, J. N. De</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cloud, Fog, or Mist in IoT? That Is the Question</atitle><jtitle>ACM transactions on Internet technology</jtitle><date>2019-05-31</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>20</epage><pages>1-20</pages><issn>1533-5399</issn><eissn>1557-6051</eissn><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.</abstract><doi>10.1145/3309709</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1035-2275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6393-8747</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0186-2994</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7188-9853</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1533-5399 |
ispartof | ACM transactions on Internet technology, 2019-05, Vol.19 (2), p.1-20 |
issn | 1533-5399 1557-6051 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1145_3309709 |
source | ACM Digital Library Complete |
title | Cloud, Fog, or Mist in IoT? That Is the Question |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T10%3A01%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cloud,%20Fog,%20or%20Mist%20in%20IoT?%20That%20Is%20the%20Question&rft.jtitle=ACM%20transactions%20on%20Internet%20technology&rft.au=Vasconcelos,%20D.%20R.&rft.date=2019-05-31&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=20&rft.pages=1-20&rft.issn=1533-5399&rft.eissn=1557-6051&rft_id=info:doi/10.1145/3309709&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1145_3309709%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |