MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285199145 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2022.3178634

Performance Analysis of Mobile Cloud Computing With Bursty Demand: A Tandem Queue Model

2022· article· en· W4285199145 on OpenAlexafffund
Bo Sun, Yuxuan Jiang, Yuan Wu, Qiang Ye, Danny H. K. Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceProvisioningQuality of serviceDistributed computingComputer networkQueueChannel (broadcasting)Queueing theoryWirelessResource allocationReal-time computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resource-constrained end devices can offload computation to backend clouds. The stochastic wireless channel that an end device is connected to can introduce bursty computation demand to the cloud. Specifically, under good channel conditions, a device can transmit more data to the cloud, which consequently yields higher instantaneous computation demand. Conversely, poor channel conditions can result in lower instantaneous demand. The performance indicator for such a mobile cloud computing system is the average of the response time, which is the time span from the arrival of the computation demand at the backend cloud instance to the completion of its execution. The question we target in this paper is how resources should be provisioned for the backend cloud instance to address this bursty computation demand and guarantee a desired quality-of-service (QoS), namely, a user-specified average response time. To answer this question, we model the mobile cloud computing system as two tandem queues. We analyze this queueing network using the fluid flow analysis framework, and derive the analytical relationship between the required resource capacity at the backend cloud instance and the desired QoS, given the workload generation process at the end device and the wireless channel conditions. Having obtained the required resource capacity for a desired QoS, we then determine whether it is economical to provision this resource capacity by subscribing to the traditional static instance or the recently introduced burstable instance offered by public cloud providers. Finally, trace-driven simulations validate our theoretical results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207