Application Components Migration in NFV-based Hybrid Cloud/Fog Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fog computing extends the cloud to the edge of the network, close to the end-users enabling the deployment of some application component in the fog while others in the cloud. Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) decouples the network functions from the underlying hardware. In NFV settings, application components can be implemented as sets of Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) chained in specific order representing VNF-Forwarding Graphs (VNF-FG). Many studies have been carried out to map the VNF-FGs to cloud systems. However, in hybrid cloud/fog systems, an additional challenge arises. The mobility of fog nodes may cause high latency as the distance between the end-users and the nodes hosting the components increases. This may not be tolerable for some applications. In such cases, a prominent solution is to migrate application components to a closer fog node. This paper focuses on application component migration in NFV-based hybrid cloud/fog systems. The objective is to minimize the aggregated makespan of the applications. The problem is modeled mathematically, and a heuristic is proposed to find the sub-optimal solution in an acceptable time. The heuristic aims at finding the optimal fog node in each time-slot considering a pre-knowledge of the mobility models of the fog nodes. The experiment's results show that our proposed solution improves the makespan and the number of migrations compared to random migration and No-migration.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".