Kubernetes in Fog Computing: Feasibility Demonstration, Limitations and Improvement Scope : Invited Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fog computing (also known as edge computing) is a decentralized computing architecture that seeks to minimize service latency and average response time in IoT applications by providing compute and network services physically close to end-users. Fog environment consists of a network of fog nodes and IoT applications are composed of containerized microservices communicating with each other. Due to limited resources of fog nodes, it is often not possible to deploy all the containers of an application on a single fog node. Therefore, communicating containers need to be distributed on multiple fog nodes. Distribution and management of containerized IoT applications is always a critical issue to the system performance in a fog environment. Kubernetes, an open-source system, has grown into a container orchestration standard by simplifying the deployment and management of containerized applications. Despite the progress made by the academia and industry with respect to container management and the wide-scale acceptance of Kubernetes in cloud environments, container management in fog environment is still in the early stage in terms of research and practical deployment. This article aims to fill this gap by analyzing the expediency of Kubernetes container orchestration tool in the fog computing model. The paper also highlights limitations with the current Kubernetes approach and provide ideas for further research to adapt to the needs of the fog environment. Lastly, we provide experiments that demonstrate the feasibility and industrial practicality of deploying and managing containerized IoT applications in the fog computing environment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".