Scheduling Continuous Operators for IoT Edge Analytics

In this paper we are interested in exploring the Edge-Fog-Cloud architecture as an alternative approach to the Cloud-based IoT data analytics. Given the limitations of Fog in terms of limited computational resources that can also be shared among multiple analytics with continuous operators over data streams, we introduce a holistic cost model that accounts both the network and computational resources available in the Edge-Fog-Cloud architecture. Then, we propose scheduling algorithms RCS and SOO-CPLEX for placing continuous operators for data stream analytics at the network edge. The former dynamically places continuous operators between the Cloud and the Fog according to the evolution of data streams rates and uses as less as possible Fog computational resources to satisfy the constraints regarding the usage of both computational and network resources. The latter statically places continuous operators between the Cloud and the Fog to minimize the overall computational and network resource usage cost. Based on thorough experiments, we evaluate the effectiveness of SOO-CPLEX and RCS using simulation.

[1]  Rajkumar Buyya,et al.  iFogSim: A toolkit for modeling and simulation of resource management techniques in the Internet of Things, Edge and Fog computing environments , 2016, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[2]  Christoph Hochreiner,et al.  Optimal Placement of Stream Processing Operators in the Fog , 2019, 2019 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Fog and Edge Computing (ICFEC).

[3]  Ruben Mayer,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey on Parallelization and Elasticity in Stream Processing , 2019, ACM Comput. Surv..

[4]  Margo I. Seltzer,et al.  Network-Aware Operator Placement for Stream-Processing Systems , 2006, 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'06).

[5]  Vladimir Vlassov,et al.  SpanEdge: Towards Unifying Stream Processing over Central and Near-the-Edge Data Centers , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC).

[6]  Luis Rodero-Merino,et al.  Finding your Way in the Fog: Towards a Comprehensive Definition of Fog Computing , 2014, CCRV.

[7]  Frank Dürr,et al.  Solving the Multi-Operator Placement Problem in Large-Scale Operator Networks , 2010, 2010 Proceedings of 19th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks.

[8]  Pedro Silva,et al.  Planner: Cost-Efficient Execution Plans Placement for Uniform Stream Analytics on Edge and Cloud , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science (WORKS).

[9]  Albert Jonathan,et al.  WASP: Wide-area Adaptive Stream Processing , 2020, Middleware.

[10]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Theoretical Improvements in Algorithmic Efficiency for Network Flow Problems , 1972, Combinatorial Optimization.

[11]  Nelson Luis Saldanha da Fonseca,et al.  The Internet of Things, Fog and Cloud Continuum: Integration and Challenges , 2018, Internet Things.

[12]  Huiyun Mao,et al.  Online Workload Allocation via Fog-Fog-Cloud Cooperation to Reduce IoT Task Service Delay , 2019, Sensors.

[13]  Blesson Varghese,et al.  DeFog: fog computing benchmarks , 2019, SEC.

[14]  Arnaud Legrand,et al.  Fog Based Framework for IoT Service Provisioning , 2019, 2019 16th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC).

[15]  M. Varacallo,et al.  2019 , 2019, Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances.

[16]  Eyal de Lara,et al.  Reconfigurable Streaming for the Mobile Edge , 2019, HotMobile.

[17]  Vincenzo Grassi,et al.  Optimal operator placement for distributed stream processing applications , 2016, DEBS.

[18]  Hao Liang,et al.  Optimal Workload Allocation in Fog-Cloud Computing Toward Balanced Delay and Power Consumption , 2016, IEEE Internet of Things Journal.

[19]  Rajkumar Buyya,et al.  Evaluating the cost-benefit of using cloud computing to extend the capacity of clusters , 2009, HPDC '09.

[20]  Antonio Brogi,et al.  QoS-Aware Deployment of IoT Applications Through the Fog , 2017, IEEE Internet of Things Journal.