IoT

【IoT】Why Cloud Computing is not enough for IoT

Posted by 西维蜀黍 on 2019-01-06, Last Modified on 2024-05-07

Basic Idea

In “A vision, architectural elements, and future directions”, it presents their vision of IoT and coin the term “cloud centric IoT” for a system offering data distribution and additional services in a cloud based layer.

In other words, a system uses Cloud as the proxy for all communications between things or as a data hub where IoT data are gathered and analysed.

Note that “cloud-based IoT” and “cloud centric IoT” are used interchangebly.

Example of Cloud centric IoT Platforms

  • M. Yuriyama and T. Kushida. Sensor-Cloud Infrastructure-Physical Sensor Management with Virtualized Sensors on Cloud Computing. In Network-Based Information Systems (NBiS), 2010 13th International Conference on, pages 1–9, 2010
  • Cloud-Based Mashup Service for the Internet of Things. In Services Computing (SCC), 2013 IEEE International Conference on, pages 462–469. Ieee, jun 2013.
  • T. Ojala, C. Yu, and H. Jin. CloudThings: A common architecture for integrating the Internet of Things with Cloud Computing. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, CSCWD 2013, pages 651–657, 2013.
  • D. Ghosh, F. Jin, and M. Maheswaran. JADE : A Unified Programming Framework for Things , Web , and Cloud. In Internet of Things (IOT), 2014 4th International Conference on the, pages 1–6, 2014.
  • T. Menzel, N. Karowski, D. Happ, V. Handziski, and A. Wolisz, “Social sensor cloud: An architecture meeting cloud-centric iot platform requirements,” Apr. 2014, 9th KuVS NGSDP Expert Talk on Next Generation Service Delivery Platforms.
  • A. Rowe, M. E. Berges, G. Bhatia, E. Goldman, R. Rajkumar, J. H. Garrett, J. M. Moura, and L. Soibelman, “Sensor Andrew: Large-scale campus-wide sensing and actuation,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 55, no. 1.2, pp. 6:1–6:14, Jan. 2011.
  • A. Antonic, K. Roankovic, M. Marjanovic, K. Pripuic, and I. P. Zarko, “A mobile crowdsensing ecosystem enabled by a cloud-based publish/subscribe middleware,” in Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), 2014 International Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 107–114.
  • M. Yuriyama and T. Kushida. Sensor-Cloud Infrastructure-Physical Sensor Management with Virtualized Sensors on Cloud Computing. In Network-Based Information Systems (NBiS), 2010 13th International Conference on, pages 1–9, 2010
  • Cloud-Based Mashup Service for the Internet of Things. In Services Computing (SCC), 2013 IEEE International Conference on, pages 462–469. Ieee, jun 2013.
  • T. Ojala, C. Yu, and H. Jin. CloudThings: A common architecture for integrating the Internet of Things with Cloud Computing. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, CSCWD 2013, pages 651–657, 2013.
  • D. Ghosh, F. Jin, and M. Maheswaran. JADE : A Unified Programming Framework for Things , Web , and Cloud. In Internet of Things (IOT), 2014 4th International Conference on the, pages 1–6, 2014.

Deficiency

While proxying the things communication via the Cloud significantly affects the timeliness of the communication especially for the cases involve actuation, using Cloud as a data hub just make the IoT a straight-forward extension to the traditional WSNs where the Cloud appear to be the data sink.

Latency

The cloud model differs from reality. Application developers view the cloud as a component that interconnects the smart devices. However, from a network point of view, the cloud is on the edge of the network (see Fig. 1). Even simple IoT applications, such as those that turn on a fan in response to a rise of the local tempera-ture, will experience unpredictable latencies from sensing, wireless transmission, gateway processing, Internet deliv-ery, and cloud processing.

Bandwidth

upstream traffic dominates. Shipping data to the cloud incurs a significant amount of upstream traffic. Typical broadband networks have more downstream bandwidth than upstream bandwidth. IoT appli-cations, however, generate data at the edges of the net-work, a pattern that will easily saturate the upstream link’s bandwidth—especially at scale.

Reference

  • Zhang, B., Mor, N., Kolb, J., Chan, D.S., Lutz, K., Allman, E., Wawrzynek, J., Lee, E.A. and Kubiatowicz, J., 2015, July. The Cloud is Not Enough: Saving IoT from the Cloud. In HotStorage.
  • [2] J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, and M. Palaniswami, “Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions,” Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1645–1660, Sep. 2013.
FEATURED TAGS
algorithm algorithmproblem architecturalpattern architecture aws c# cachesystem codis concurrentcontrol database dataformat datastructure debug design designpattern distributedsystem django docker domain engineering freebsd git golang grafana hackintosh hadoop hardware hexo http hugo ios iot java javaee javascript kafka kubernetes linux linuxcommand linuxio lock macos markdown microservices mysql nas network networkprogramming nginx node.js npm oop openwrt operatingsystem padavan performance programming prometheus protobuf python redis router security shell software testing spring sql systemdesign truenas ubuntu vmware vpn windows wmware wordpress xml zookeeper
FRIENDS

TOC