2017
DOI: 10.1109/access.2017.2766923
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Framework of Fog Computing: Architecture, Challenges, and Optimization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
93
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 182 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
93
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In the case with only one RAT interface (there is no AQUAplus algorithm within the mobile nodes and when we are using the basic mobile fog and cloud computing methods [15][16][17][18]) the average queue delay values are maximal (see the curve where M=1 in Figure 3). Also, with smaller number of RAT interfaces the average throughput is smaller and is supporting only those RAT interfaces belonging to the RAT with best mobility support.…”
Section: Simulation Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…In the case with only one RAT interface (there is no AQUAplus algorithm within the mobile nodes and when we are using the basic mobile fog and cloud computing methods [15][16][17][18]) the average queue delay values are maximal (see the curve where M=1 in Figure 3). Also, with smaller number of RAT interfaces the average throughput is smaller and is supporting only those RAT interfaces belonging to the RAT with best mobility support.…”
Section: Simulation Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is emphasized that in Figures 2-4 the case when there is only one used interface (M=1) is the case when we are using the basic mobile fog and cloud computing methods [15][16][17][18] and there is no AQUAplus algorithm within the used mobile nodes. With this specific comparison, the novelty and actual value of the proposed framework is clearly defined.…”
Section: Simulation Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations