Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Stochastic performance model for web server capacity planning in fog computing

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cloud computing is attractive mostly because it allows companies to increase and decrease available resources, which makes them seem limitless. Although cloud computing has many advantages, there are still several issues such as unpredictable latency and no mobility support. To overcome these problems, fog computing extends communication, storage, and computation toward the edge of network. Therefore, fog computing may support delay-sensitive applications, which means that the application latency from end users can be improved, and it also decreases energy consumption and traffic congestion. The demand for performance, availability, and reliability in computational systems grows every day. To optimize these features, it is necessary to improve the resource utilization such as CPU, network bandwidth, memory, and storage. Although fog computing extends the cloud computing resources and improves the quality of service, executing capacity planning is an effective approach to arranging a deterministic process for web-related activities, and it is one of the approaches of optimizing web performance. The goal of capacity planning in fog computing is preparing the system for an incoming workload, so we are able to optimize the system’s utilization while minimizing the total task execution time, which happens before sending the load toward the cloud environment or not sending it at all. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of a web server running in a fog environment. We also use QoS metrics to plan its capacity. We proposed performance closed-form equations extracted from a continuous-time Markov chain model of the system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://jmeter.apache.org/.

References

  1. Apache JMeter (2016) JMeter. Apache Software Foundation

  2. Apache Listenbacklog. https://www.unixteacher.org/blog/linux/tuning-apache-listenbacklog/. Accessed 19 Oct 2018

  3. Almeida VA, Menascé DA (2002) Capacity planning an essential tool for managing web services. IT Prof 4(4):33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Amazon E (2018) Amazon web services. http://aws.amazon.com/es/ec2/. Nov 2018

  5. Araujo J, Maciel P, Torquato M, Callou G, Andrade E (2014) Availability evaluation of digital library cloud services. In: 2014 44th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN). IEEE, New York, pp 666–671

  6. Araujo J, Matos R, Alves V, Maciel P, Souza F, Trivedi KS et al (2014) Software aging in the eucalyptus cloud computing infrastructure: characterization and rejuvenation. ACM J Emerg Technol Comput Syst (JETC) 10(1):11

    Google Scholar 

  7. Araujo J, Matos R, Maciel P, Matias R, Beicker I (2011) Experimental evaluation of software aging effects on the eucalyptus cloud computing infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the Middleware 2011 Industry Track Workshop. ACM, New York, p 4

  8. Araujo J, Matos RDS, Maciel PRM, Matias R (2011) Software aging issues on the eucalyptus cloud computing infrastructure. In: SMC, pp 1411–1416

  9. Bauer E, Adams R (2012) Reliability and availability of cloud computing. Wiley, London

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhattcharya A, De P (2016) Computation offloading from mobile devices: can edge devices perform better than the cloud? In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Adaptive Resource Management and Scheduling for Cloud Computing. ACM, New York, pp 1–6

  11. Caliri GV (2000) Introduction to analytical modeling. In: International CMG Conference, pp 31–36

  12. Dastjerdi AV, Buyya R (2016) Fog computing: helping the internet of things realize its potential. Computer 49(8):112–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. El Kafhali S, Salah K (2017) Efficient and dynamic scaling of fog nodes for IoT devices. J Supercomput 73(12):5261–5284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fan Q, Wang Q (2015) Performance comparison of web servers with different architectures: a case study using high concurrency workload. In: 2015 Third IEEE Workshop on Hot Topics in Web Systems and Technologies (HotWeb). IEEE, New York, pp 37–42

  15. Ghosh R, Simmhan Y (2018) Distributed scheduling of event analytics across edge and cloud. ACM Trans Cyber Phys Syst 2(4):24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gokhale SS, Trivedi KS (1998) Analytical modeling. In: Encyclopedia of distributed systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam

  17. Jain R (1990) The art of computer systems performance analysis: techniques for experimental design, measurement, simulation, and modeling. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kamiyama N, Nakano Y, Shiomoto K, Hasegawa G, Murata M, Miyahara H (2016) Priority control based on website categories in edge computing. In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS). IEEE, New York, pp 776–781

  19. Krishnan YN, Bhagwat CN, Utpat AP (2015) Fog computing—network based cloud computing. In: 2015 2nd International Conference on Electronics and Communication Systems (ICECS). IEEE, New York, pp 250–251

  20. Liu B, Chang X, Liu B, Chen Z (2017) Performance analysis model for fog services under multiple resource types. In: 2017 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Their Applications (DSA). IEEE, New York, pp 110–117

  21. Liu X, Sha L, Diao Y, Froehlich S, Hellerstein JL, Parekh S (2003) Online response time optimization of apache web server. In: International Workshop on Quality of Service. Springer, Berlin, pp 461–478

  22. Lorido-Botran T, Miguel-Alonso J, Lozano JA (2014) A review of auto-scaling techniques for elastic applications in cloud environments. J Grid Comput 12(4):559–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Matias R, Paulo Filho J (2006) An experimental study on software aging and rejuvenation in web servers. In: 30th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC’06), vol 1. IEEE, New York, pp 189–196

  24. Melo C, Dantas J, Maciel R, Silva P, Maciel P (2019) Models to evaluate service provisioning over cloud computing environments-A blockchain-as-A-service case study. Rev Inf Teórica Aplicada 26(3):65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Menasce DA, Almeida VA (2002) Capacity planning for web services: metrics, models, and methods. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mukherjee M, Shu L, Wang D (2018) Survey of fog computing: fundamental, network applications, and research challenges. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 20(3):1826–1857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Munir A, Kansakar P, Khan SU (2017) IFCIoT: integrated fog cloud IoT: a novel architectural paradigm for the future internet of things. IEEE Consum Electron Mag 6(3):74–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pereira P, Araujo J, Maciel P (2019) A hybrid mechanism of horizontal auto-scaling based on thresholds and time series. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, New York, pp 2065–2070

  29. Pereira P, Araujo J, Matos R, Preguiça N, Maciel P (2018) Software rejuvenation in computer systems: an automatic forecasting approach based on time series. In: 2018 IEEE 37th International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC). IEEE, New York, pp 1–8

  30. Sachdeva M, Singh G, Kumar K (2011) An emulation based impact analysis of DDoS attacks on web services during flash events. In: 2011 2nd International Conference on Computer and Communication Technology (ICCCT). IEEE, New York, pp 479–484

  31. Sarkar S, Chatterjee S, Misra S (2015) Assessment of the suitability of fog computing in the context of internet of things. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 6(1):46–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Singhmar N, Mathur V, Apte V, Manjunath D (2006) A combined LIFO-priority scheme for overload control of e-commerce web servers. Preprint arXiv:cs/0611087

  33. Stypsanelli I, Brun O, Medjiah S, Prabhu BJ (2019) Capacity planning of fog computing infrastructures under probabilistic delay guarantees. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Fog Computing (ICFC). IEEE, New York, pp 185–194

  34. Tadakamalla U, Menascé D (2018) FogQN: an analytic model for fog/cloud computing. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing Companion (UCC Companion). IEEE, New York, pp 307–313

  35. Trivedi KS (2008) Probability and statistics with reliability, queuing and computer science applications. Wiley, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Tuffin B, Choudhary PK, Hirel C, Trivedi KS (2007) Simulation versus analytic-numeric methods: illustrative examples. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and ...), p 63

  37. Urgaonkar R, Wang S, He T, Zafer M, Chan K, Leung KK (2015) Dynamic service migration and workload scheduling in edge-clouds. Perform Eval 91:205–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Vaquero LM, Rodero-Merino L (2014) Finding your way in the fog: towards a comprehensive definition of fog computing. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 44(5):27–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Verma M, Yadav NBAK (2015) An architecture for load balancing techniques for fog computing environment. Int J Comput Sci Commun 8(2):43–49

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wang S, Valluripally S, Mitra R, Nuguri SS, Salah K, Calyam P (2019) Cost-performance trade-offs in fog computing for IoT data processing of social virtual reality. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Fog Computing (ICFC). IEEE, New York, pp 134–143

  41. Yi S, Li C, Li Q (2015) A survey of fog computing: concepts, applications and issues. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on Mobile Big Data, pp 37–42

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—CAPES, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq, and MoDCS Research Group for their support. This work was also supported by a Grant of Contract No. W911NF1810413 from the US Army Research Office (ARO).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulo Pereira.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pereira, P., Araujo, J., Torquato, M. et al. Stochastic performance model for web server capacity planning in fog computing. J Supercomput 76, 9533–9557 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03218-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03218-w

Keywords

Navigation