Optimal Workload Allocation in Fog-Cloud Computing Towards Balanced Delay and Power Consumption
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile users typically have high demand on localized and location-based information services. To always retrieve the localized data from the remote cloud, however, tends to be inefficient, which motivates fog computing. The fog computing, also known as edge computing, extends cloud computing by deploying localized computing facilities at the premise of users, which prestores cloud data and distributes to mobile users with fast-rate local connections. As such, fog computing introduces an intermediate fog layer between mobile users and cloud, and complements cloud computing toward low-latency high-rate services to mobile users. In this fundamental framework, it is important to study the interplay and cooperation between the edge (fog) and the core (cloud). In this paper, the tradeoff between power consumption and transmission delay in the fog-cloud computing system is investigated. We formulate a workload allocation problem which suggests the optimal workload allocations between fog and cloud toward the minimal power consumption with the constrained service delay. The problem is then tackled using an approximate approach by decomposing the primal problem into three subproblems of corresponding subsystems, which can be, respectively, solved. Finally, based on simulations and numerical results, we show that by sacrificing modest computation resources to save communication bandwidth and reduce transmission latency, fog computing can significantly improve the performance of cloud computing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it