Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37050551›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Simulation Tools for Fog Computing: A Comparative Analysis.

Muhammad Fahimullah, Guillaume Philippe, Shohreh Ahvar, Maria Trocan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Muhammad FahimullahInstitut Supérieur d'Électronique de Paris (ISEP), 75006 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1307-4570
Guillaume PhilippeInstitut Supérieur d'Électronique de Paris (ISEP), 75006 Paris, France.
Shohreh AhvarNokia Networks, 91300 Massy, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9615-0510
Maria TrocanInstitut Supérieur d'Électronique de Paris (ISEP), 75006 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6241-0126

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fog Computing (FC) was introduced to offer resources closer to the users. Researchers propose different solutions to make FC mature and use simulators for evaluating their solutions at early stages. In this paper, we compare different FC simulators based on their technical and non-technical characteristics. In addition, a practical comparison is conducted to compare the three main FC simulators based on their performance such as execution time, CPU, and memory usage for running different applications. The analysis can be helpful for researchers to select the appropriate simulator and platform to evaluate their solutions on different use cases. Furthermore, open issues and challenges for FC simulators are discussed that require attention and need to be addressed in the future.

Indexed as

cloud computingedge computingevaluationfog computingsimulators

Identifiers

PMID37050551
PMCPMC10099336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.