| Literature DB >> 35009740 |
Nancy A Angel1, Dakshanamoorthy Ravindran1, P M Durai Raj Vincent2, Kathiravan Srinivasan3, Yuh-Chung Hu4.
Abstract
Cloud computing has become integral lately due to the ever-expanding Internet-of-things (IoT) network. It still is and continues to be the best practice for implementing complex computational applications, emphasizing the massive processing of data. However, the cloud falls short due to the critical constraints of novel IoT applications generating vast data, which entails a swift response time with improved privacy. The newest drift is moving computational and storage resources to the edge of the network, involving a decentralized distributed architecture. The data processing and analytics perform at proximity to end-users, and overcome the bottleneck of cloud computing. The trend of deploying machine learning (ML) at the network edge to enhance computing applications and services has gained momentum lately, specifically to reduce latency and energy consumed while optimizing the security and management of resources. There is a need for rigorous research efforts oriented towards developing and implementing machine learning algorithms that deliver the best results in terms of speed, accuracy, storage, and security, with low power consumption. This extensive survey presented on the prominent computing paradigms in practice highlights the latest innovations resulting from the fusion between ML and the evolving computing paradigms and discusses the underlying open research challenges and future prospects.Entities:
Keywords: cloud computing; edge computing; fog computing; internet-of-things; machine learning
Year: 2021 PMID: 35009740 PMCID: PMC8749780 DOI: 10.3390/s22010196
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
List of acronyms used in the manuscript and their expansion.
| Acronym | Full Form |
|---|---|
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| AR | Augmented Reality |
| CoT | Cloud of Things |
| CC | Cloud Computing |
| CCTV | Closed-Circuit Television |
| CPU | Central Processing Unit |
| CR | Cloud Robotics |
| DDoS | Distributed Denial of Service |
| DL | Deep Learning |
| EC | Edge Computing |
| ETSI | European Telecommunications Standard Institute |
| FaaS | Function-as-a-Service |
| FC | Fog Computing |
| IaaS | Infrastructure-as-a-Service |
| ICT | Information and Communications Technology |
| IDC | International Data Corporation |
| IoT | Internet-of-Things |
| IT | Information Technology |
| ITS | Intelligent Transport System |
| ITU | International Telecommunication Union |
| MACC | Mobile Ad hoc Cloud Computing |
| MEC | Multi-access Edge Computing |
| MC | Mobile Computing |
| MCC | Mobile Cloud Computing |
| MDC | Micro Data Center |
| mist | Mist Computing |
| ML | Machine Learning |
| MMA | Man-in-the-Middle Attack |
| MIT | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| NIST | National Institute of Standards and Technology |
| OP | Operational Technology |
| PaaS | Platform-as-a-Service |
| PRISMA | Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses |
| QoE | Quality of Experience |
| QoS | Quality of Service |
| RAN | Radio Access Network |
| RAS | Reliability Availability Serviceability |
| SaaS | Software-as-a-Service |
| SDN | Software-Defined Networking |
| SLA | Service-Level Agreement |
| VM | Virtual Machine |
| VR | Virtual Reality |
| WSN | Wireless Sensor Network |
Figure 1Organization of this survey paper.
Figure 2PRISMA flow diagram for the selection process of the research articles used in this review.
Figure 3Number and year of publications studied in this review.
Review/survey papers and their contributions.
| Author and Year | Articles | Time Span | Systematic Study | Survey/Review Outline | Computing | Future Directions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud | Fog | Edge | ||||||
| Atzori et al. [ | 119 | 1999 | × | The survey examines the prospect of Internet-of-Things from the evolutionary perspective, the role of IoT in modern society and ensuing challenges. | ✓ | × | ✓ | × |
| Hu et al. [ | 123 | 2001 | × | The review presents fog computing features, architecture, compares with other computing paradigms, and summarizes key technologies that aid in application and deployment. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mahmud et al. [ | 47 | 2012 | × | The work presents a taxonomy from a comprehensive analysis of fog features and challenges pertaining to the structure, service, and security and identifies research gaps. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Lin et al. [ | 167 | 2001 | × | The article offers a comprehensive overview of state-of-the-art IoT-enabling technologies, system architecture, privacy, security issues, and concerns of IoT and fog/edge computing integration during real-world deployment. | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mao et al. [ | 242 | 2003 | × | An exhaustive outline of state-of-the-art MEC from a communication viewpoint, resource management, comparison with MCC is presented. | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ |
| Naha et al. [ | 142 | 2001 | × | The survey article presents fog computing overview, architecture, related technologies, taxonomy by analyzing fog requirement and reviewing challenges, research issues, and trends. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mouradian et al. [ | 168 | 2006 | ✓ | An exhaustive survey is tendered on fog computing architectures, algorithms, affiliated concepts, and their dissimilarities; additionally, challenges and research directions were discussed. | × | ✓ | × | ✓ |
| Mukherjee et al. [ | 225 | 1997 | × | The survey extends an overview of fog computing basics, architecture and highlights the approach for service and allocation of resources to overcome latency, bandwidth, and energy consumption. | × | ✓ | × | ✓ |
| Elazhary [ | 412 | 1991 | × | The exhaustive review researches arenas such as IoT, cloud computing, mobile computing, and related | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Atlam et al. [ | 63 | 2012 | × | This work reviews fog computing state-of-the-art, including fog features, architecture, and merits, and insists on fog being an IoT enabler. | × | ✓ | × | ✓ |
| Bangui et al. [ | 114 | 2012 | × | The review outlines edge computing technology and the challenges and concerns that accompany | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Yousefpour et al. [ | 450 | 2001 | × | A comprehensive survey is furnished that emphasizes fog computing, associated computing | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Abdulkareem et al. [ | 95 | 2011 | × | This review highlights recent advancements of ML techniques related to the accuracy, resource management and security of fog computing and its role in edge computing. | × | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Donno et al. [ | 71 | 2004 | × | The review article offers clarification for beginners into research on cloud computing, edge computing, and fog computing by illustrating features and architecture of each paradigm and concludes by stating fog computing’s relevance as fog binds cloud, edge computing, and IoT together. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Khan et al. [ | 101 | 2009 | × | The study focuses on cloud and state-of-the-art edge computing concepts, critical requirements, limitations and identified unaddressed issues. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Cao et al. [ | 62 | 2005 | × | The article reviews research related to edge | ✓ | × | ✓ | ✓ |
| Habibi et al. [ | 191 | 2002 | × | The survey covers existing computing paradigms and emphasizes fog computing research areas by presenting a taxonomy and analyses from fog’s architectural viewpoint. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Moura et al. [ | 194 | 1999 | × | This work surveys state-of-the-art fog computing systems, offers insights into designing and managing resilient fog systems and illustrates research issues and upcoming future trends. | × | ✓ | × | ✓ |
| Aslanpour et al. [ | 50 | 2010 | × | The study offers a taxonomy of real-world | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Alli et al. [ | 102 | 2009 | × | The article delves into the ecosystems of IoT–fog–cloud, analyzing concepts, architecture, standards, tools of fog Cloud-of-Things, and presents a taxonomy on emerging issues. It concludes that ML and AI in fog ecosystems would be appropriate for latency-sensitive and resource-constrained systems. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
(✓: Yes, ×: No).
Figure 4Common cloud service models and their classifications.
Figure 5Multi-access edge computing systems—a general architecture.
Figure 6Mobile device–cloudlet–cloud model.
Figure 7Fog computing and its related computing paradigms.
Figure 8Typical cloud–fog computing architecture.
Figure 9N-tier architecture.
Figure 10Typical fog computing architectural layers.
Figure 11Applications of fog computing.
Comparison of fog, edge and cloud computing characteristics.
| Characteristic | Fog | Edge | Cloud |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operators | Users and cloud provider | Local enterprise or network infrastructure providers | Cloud provider |
| Participating Nodes | Fog devices (switches, | Edge devices | Fewer nodes spanning cloud to IoT devices |
| Service Type | Less global | Local | Global |
| Management | Distributed/centralized | Local business and service provider | Centralized |
| Hardware | Devices with virtualization facility (access points, routers, switches, servers) | Edge devices with compute capacity | Massive data centers and equipment with virtualization potential |
| Computation Device | Any device capable of | Edge devices | Powerful cloud servers |
| Available Computing | Moderate | Moderate | High |
| Nature of Failure | Highly diverse | Highly diverse | Predictable |
| Main Driver | Academia/ Industry | Academia/industry | Academia/industry |
| User Connectivity | Mostly wireless | Mostly wireless | High speed (Both wired and wireless) |
| Distance from Users | Relatively close | Close | Far |
| Internal Connectivity | Operate autonomously with intermittent or no internet connectivity | Operate autonomously with intermittent or no internet connectivity | Requires internet connectivity throughout service duration |
| Main | OpenFog Consortium, IEEE | - | National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), Distributed Management Task Force (DMFT), Open Commons Consortium (OCC), Global Inter-Cloud Technology Forum (GICTF) |
| Power Source | Battery/green energy/ | Battery/green energy/direct power | Direct power |
| Power Consumption | Low | Low | High |
| Application Type | High computation with lower latency | Low latency computation | Ample computation |
| Architecture | Decentralized/hierarchical | Localized/distributed | Centralized/hierarchical |
| Computation Capacity | Moderate | Moderate | High |
| Storage Capacity | Limited | Limited | Massive storage capacity |
| Availability | High | Average | High |
| Latency | Low | Low | Relatively high |
| Node mobility | High | High | Very low |
| Security/Vulnerability | Must be provided on | Must be provided on edge devices | Must be provided along Cloud-to-Things continuum |
| Server Location | Can be deployed at edge or dedicated locations | Near edge devices | Stationed in huge |
| Number of | One/few | One | Multiple |
| Hardware | WAN, LAN, WLAN, Wi-Fi, cellular | WAN, LAN, WLAN, Wi-Fi___33, cellular, ZigBee | WAN |
| Application Handling—real-time | Achievable | Achievable | Difficult owing to |
| Service Access | Through connected devices from the edge to the core | At the edge of the internet | Through core |
| Computation Cost | Low | Low | High |
| Cooling Cost | Very low | Very low | High |
| Deployment Space | Less | Less | Massive |
| Delay Cost | Less | Less | More |
Fog, edge, and cloud computing functionalities.
| Feature | Fog | Edge | Cloud |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heterogeneity support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Connection to cloud | Yes | Yes or No | Yes |
| Infrastructure need | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Geographically distributed | Yes | Yes | No |
| Virtualization technology | Yes | No | Yes |
| Location awareness | Yes | Yes | No |
| Ultra-low latency | Yes | Yes | No |
| Scalability | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Mobility support | Yes | Yes | No |
| Application support—real-time | Yes | Yes | No |
| Application support—large-scale | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Standardized | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Multiple IoT applications | Yes | No | Yes |
| Data persistence | Yes | No | Yes |
| Computation migration | Yes | No | No |
| Conserving energy | Yes | Yes | No |
Figure 12Cloud, fog, and edge computing alliance.
Figure 13Fog computing—open challenges.
Open challenges and future research directions—summary.
| Open Issue | Limitations | Potential Solutions or | Related | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardization of fog | Several fog definitions and related concepts are being proposed. | Formulate fog definition that can be universally accepted. | Foundation | Standards and Definition |
| Scalability | Major fog system schemes in practice fail to scale IoT vastitude. | Design algorithms and procedures that ensure scalability. | Scalability | Placement; Service Provisioning; Scheduling; Load Balancing; |
| Bandwidth-aware system | Although reducing bandwidth usage is key, fewer fog computing regard conserving bandwidth through fog systems. | Deliberate on saving bandwidth through fog systems and measure bandwidth usage under fog systems. | Bandwidth | Testbeds and Experiments; Control and Monitoring; Infrastructure Design |
| SLA for fog | SLAs for cloud system are defined, but SLAs for fog systems are not defined. | Devise new SLA compatible for fog computing systems that supports multi-vendors. | Cost, QoS | Fog Infrastructure; Control and Monitoring |
| Mobility | Major existing work considers fixed fog nodes and mobile IoT devices. | Propose fog systems with mobile fog nodes and design suitable task offloading and scheduling plans ensuring availability to IoT nodes. | Mobility, Management | Concepts and Framework; Security and Privacy; Scheduling, Load Balancing and Offloading |
| Fog node site | The issue of site selection for fog node is highlighted by limited studies. | Devise site selection policies for fog nodes, addressing computation, communication, storage, and cost. | QoS, Cost, RAS | Resource Analysis and Estimation; Infrastructure Design |
| SDN support | Fog computing does not provide native support to SDN. | Improving and standardizing SDN for fog systems. | Programmability | Software and Tools; Definition and Standards |
| Resource | Fog resource monitoring is addressed by very few studies. | Formulate procedures that monitor resources of fog systems involving multi-operators. | Management, Programmability | Software and Tools; Control and Monitoring |
| High-speed user support | Existing communication protocols do not assist high-speed users. | Develop protocols supporting high-speed users and mobility-predicting algorithms based on machine learning. | Mobility | Architecture and Framework |
| Federation | Federation schemes or application for fog is unavailable. | Formulate new fog node federation strategy operating across diverse domains. | Programmability, Management | Software and Tools |
| Fog node | The fog nodes positioned at proximity of end user incites security challenge. | Configure secure fog nodes with robust access control policies that handle site attacks and secure hardware design to withstand physical damage. | Security, Device Heterogeneity | Security and Privacy; Hardware Design |
| Trust and | Heterogeneous IoT nodes and fog nodes make the traditional authentication and trust strategies inept. The providers of fog service may be internet service provider, cloud vendor, or end-users, which jeopardizes the trust in fog. | Design of novel trust and authentication structure for user, service, and nodes is needful. | Heterogeneity, Security | Security and Privacy; Definition and Standards |
| Security for fog offloading | Fog node task offloading may lead to security and privacy concern. | Devise secure offloading technique and integrity, correctness checking scheme for task offloaded. | Security, QoS | Offloading, Security, and Privacy |
| Privacy | With various networks involved and fog operating predominantly on wireless technology, privacy issues arise. The end user can access numerous fog nodes which involves sensitive data. | Maintaining the privacy of sensitive personal data is vital. | Privacy | Privacy and Security |
| Flexibility | Fault or failure at network is not regarded by existing fog networks, with fog nodes being more prone to DoS attacks due to limited resources. | Regard fault prevention, detection, and recovery in fog networks and design DoS-resilient fog system. | Security | Security and Privacy; Infrastructure Design; Control and Monitoring |
| Green fog computing | Enhancing energy efficiency of overall fog system has to be deliberate. | Utilize battery storages and energy harvesting for IoT sensors and devices and place fog nodes near renewable energy sources. | Energy | Resource analysis, Estimation; Infrastructure Design |
| Energy consumption | With huge number of fog nodes, energy consumed is large. The energy demand of fog nodes should be reduced to mitigate cost and energy. | Device resource provisioning strategy that is energy efficient, while being aware of fog node positions. | Energy | Resource Analysis, Estimation; Infrastructure Design |
| Multi-objective design | Many existent schemes reckon certain objectives and overlook other objectives. | Propound schemes that regard multiple objectives concurrently (task offload strategy that deems availability, bandwidth, energy, and security). | QoS | Scheduling, Load Balancing, and Offloading; Resource Analysis and Estimation; Testbeds and Experiments |
Figure 14Future opportunities—fog computing and other evolving computing paradigms.