Impact of cloudlets on interactive mobile cloud applications
Abstract
In this paper we analyze and study the impact of cloudlets in interactive mobile cloud applications. To study the impact we propose the design of cloudlet network and service architectures. Our study focuses on file editing, video streaming and collaborative chatting which are representative enterprise application scenarios. Initial simulation results show the performance gains of using cloudlets over using clouds in terms of data transfer delay and system throughput. When not more than two cloudlet wireless hops are used to transfer data, the cloudlet-based approach outperforms the cloud-based approach for all three application scenarios. With more cloudlet wireless hops under mobility, the cloud-based approach can give a better performance for some of the data transfers even though the cloudlet-based can outperform the cloud-based approach for most of the flows. In such scenarios, we suggest that an adaptive scheme should be used. For example, a scheme making an intelligent decision on either the cloudlet network or the cloud network, whichever gives minimum delay, can be used.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cloudlet model suffers performance degradation if too many intermediary hops between the mobile user and the cloudlet target are required.
“Nevertheless, the cloudlet model has been shown to suffer performance degradation if too many intermediary steps (“hops”), where bandwidth was reduced) were required between the mobile user and the cloudlet target in a simulation study [142].”
From Edge AI: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as [142]
Cites
The case for vm-based cloudlets in mobile computing
Satyanarayanan, M., Bahl, P., Caceres, R., & Davies, N. (2009) · IEEE Pervasive Computing · doi:10.1109/mprv.2009.82 · Cited by 3,660 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Taleb, T., Samdanis, K., Mada, B., Flinck, H., Dutta, S., & Sabella, D. (2017) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2705720 · Cited by 1,775 · see citing works
Singh, R., & Gill, S. S. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.02.004 · Cited by 572 · see citing works
Shaukat, U., Ahmed, E., Anwar, Z., & Xia, F. (2016) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2015.11.009 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fesehaye, D., Gao, Y., Nahrstedt, K., & Wang, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Boeing (United States) (US)
- Venue
- 2012 IEEE 16th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2012-09
- Pages
- 123-132
- ISSN
- 1541-7719 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984200271
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 13.95
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Caching and Content Delivery
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Cloud Computing and Remote Desktop Technologies
- Keywords
- cloudlets, mobile cloud computing, interactive mobile application, cloud services, data transfer delay, throughput, video streaming, file editing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review