Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3358960.3379140acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicpeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Contention Aware Web of Things Emulation Testbed

Published: 20 April 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Since the advent of the Web, new Web benchmarking tools have frequently been introduced to keep up with evolving workloads and environments. The introduction of Web of Things (WoT) marks the beginning of another important paradigm that requires new benchmarking tools and testbeds. Such a WoT benchmarking testbed can enable the comparison of different WoT application configurations and workload scenarios under assumptions regarding WoT application resource demands and WoT device network characteristics. The powerful computational capabilities of modern commodity multicore servers along with the limited resource consumption footprints of WoT devices suggest the feasibility of a benchmarking testbed that can emulate the application behaviour of a large number of WoT devices on just a single multicore server. However, to obtain test results that reflect the true performance of the system being emulated, care must be exercised to detect and consider the impact of testbed bottlenecks on performance results. For example, if too many WoT devices are emulated then performance metrics obtained from a test run, e.g., WoT device response times, would only reflect contention among emulated devices for shared multicore server resources instead of providing a true indication of the performance of the WoT system being emulated. We develop a testbed that helps a user emulate a system consisting of multiple WoT devices on a single multicore server by exploiting Docker containers. Furthermore, we devise a novel mechanism for the user to check whether shared resource contention in the testbed has impacted the integrity of test results. Our solution allows for careful scaling of experiments and enables resource efficient evaluation of a wide range of WoT systems, architectures, application characteristics, workload scenarios, and network conditions.

References

[1]
Martin Arlitt, Manish Marwah, Gowtham Bellala, Amip Shah, Jeff Healey, and Ben Vandiver. 2015. IoTAbench: an internet of things analytics benchmark. In Proc. of the 6th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering. ACM, 133--144.
[2]
Emmanuel Baccelli, Oliver Hahm, Mesut Gunes, Matthias Wahlisch, and Thomas C Schmidt. 2013. RIOT OS: Towards an OS for the Internet of Things. In 2013 IEEE conference on computer communications workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS). IEEE, 79--80.
[3]
Laura Belli, Simone Cirani, Luca Davoli, Andrea Gorrieri, Mirko Mancin, Marco Picone, and Gianluigi Ferrari. 2015. Design and Deployment of an IoT Application-Oriented Testbed. Computer, Vol. 48 (09 2015), 32--40. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2015.253
[4]
Flavio Bonomi, Rodolfo Milito, Preethi Natarajan, and Jiang Zhu. 2014. Fog computing: A platform for internet of things and analytics. In Big data and internet of things: A roadmap for smart environments. Springer, 169--186.
[5]
Giacomo Brambilla, Marco Picone, Simone Cirani, Michele Amoretti, and Francesco Zanichelli. 2014. A simulation platform for large-scale internet of things scenarios in urban environments. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on IoT in Urban Space. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and ?, 50--55.
[6]
Ioannis Chatzigiannakis, Stefan Fischer, Ch. Koninis, G. Mylonas, and D. Pfisterer. 2009. WISEBED: an open large-scale wireless sensor network testbed. In International Conference on Sensor Applications, Experimentation and Logistics. Springer, 68--87.
[7]
Gabriele D'Angelo, Stefano Ferretti, and Vittorio Ghini. 2017. Multi-level simulation of internet of things on smart territories. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, Vol. 73 (2017), 3--21.
[8]
Adam Dunkels, Bjorn Gronvall, and Thiemo Voigt. 2004. Contiki-a lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors. In 29th annual IEEE international conference on local computer networks. IEEE, 455--462.
[9]
Joakim Eriksson, Fredrik Österlind, Niclas Finne, Nicolas Tsiftes, Adam Dunkels, Thiemo Voigt, Robert Sauter, and Pedro José Marrón. 2009. COOJA/MSPSim: Interoperability Testing for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the 2Nd International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (Simutools '09). ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering), ICST, Brussels, Belgium, Belgium, Article 27, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.4108/ICST.SIMUTOOLS2009.5637
[10]
Alexei Ledenev et. al. [n.d.]. Pumba: Chaos testing tool for Docker. https://github.com/alexei-led/pumba. Last accessed: [2019-08--22].
[11]
Roy T Fielding and Richard N Taylor. 2000. Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. Vol. 7. University of California, Irvine Doctoral dissertation.
[12]
Alexander Gluhak, Srdjan Krco, Michele Nati, Dennis Pfisterer, Nathalie Mitton, and Tahiry Razafindralambo. 2011. A survey on facilities for experimental internet of things research. (2011).
[13]
Emily H Halili. 2008. Apache JMeter: A practical beginner's guide to automated testing and performance measurement for your websites .Packt Publishing Ltd.
[14]
Martin Grambow Elias Grünewald Sascha Huk Hasenburg, Jonathan and David Bermbach. 2019. MockFog: Emulating Fog Computing Infrastructure in the Cloud. In Proc. of the First IEEE International Conference on Fog Computing .
[15]
Raoufehsadat Hashemian, Diwakar Krishnamurthy, and Martin Arlitt. 2012. Web Workload Generation Challenges - an Empirical Investigation. Softw. Pract. Exper., Vol. 42, 5 (May 2012), 629--647. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.1093
[16]
Raoufeh Hashemian, Diwakar Krishnamurthy, Martin Arlitt, and Niklas Carlsson. 2013. Improving the scalability of a multi-core web server. In Proc. of the 4th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering. ACM, 161--172.
[17]
Raoufeh Hashemian, Diwakar Krishnamurthy, Niklas Carlsson, and Martin Arlitt. 2019. WoTbench: A Benchmarking Framework for the Web of Things. In Proc. of the 9th ACM International Conference on the Internet of Things. ACM, 1--4.
[18]
R. Jain. 1991. The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis. Wiley & sons.
[19]
Gabor Kecskemeti, Giuliano Casale, Devki Nandan Jha, Justin Lyon, and Rajiv Ranjan. 2017. Modelling and simulation challenges in internet of things. IEEE cloud computing, Vol. 4, 1 (2017), 62--69.
[20]
Matthias Kovatsch, Martin Lanter, and Zach Shelby. 2014. Californium: Scalable cloud services for the internet of things with coap. In 2014 International Conference on the Internet of Things (IOT). IEEE, 1--6.
[21]
Koojana Kuladinithi, Olaf Bergmann, Thomas Pötsch, Markus Becker, and Carmelita Görg. 2011. Implementation of coap and its application in transport logistics. Proc. IP
[22]
SN, Chicago, IL, USA (2011).
[23]
Jorge Lanza, Luis Sanchez, Juan Ramon Santana, Rachit Agarwal, Nikolaos Kefalakis, Paul Grace, Tarek Elsaleh, Mengxuan Zhao, Elias Tragos, Hung Nguyen, et al. 2018. Experimentation as a service over semantically interoperable Internet of Things testbeds. IEEE Access, Vol. 6 (2018), 51607--51625.
[24]
Philip Levis, Nelson Lee, Matt Welsh, and David Culler. 2003. TOSSIM: Accurate and scalable simulation of entire TinyOS applications. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems. ACM, 126--137.
[25]
Philip Levis, Sam Madden, Joseph Polastre, Robert Szewczyk, Kamin Whitehouse, Alec Woo, David Gay, Jason Hill, Matt Welsh, Eric Brewer, et al. 2005. TinyOS: An operating system for sensor networks. In Ambient intelligence. Springer, 115--148.
[26]
Vilen Looga, Zhonghong Ou, Yang Deng, and Antti Yl"a-J"a"aski. 2012. Mammoth: A massive-scale emulation platform for internet of things. In 2012 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Cloud Computing and Intelligence Systems, Vol. 3. IEEE, 1235--1239.
[27]
R. Love. [n.d.]. CPU Affinity. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6799. Last accessed: [2019-08--22].
[28]
Alessandro Ludovici and Anna Calveras. 2015. A proxy design to leverage the interconnection of coap wireless sensor networks with web applications. Sensors, Vol. 15, 1 (2015), 1217--1244.
[29]
Li Ma, Yang Yang, Zhaoming Qiu, Guotong Xie, Yue Pan, and Shengping Liu. 2006. Towards a complete OWL ontology benchmark. In European Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 125--139.
[30]
Cristyan Manta-Caro and Juan M. Fernández-Luna. 2018. Modeling and Simulating the Web of Things from an Information Retrieval Perspective. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 12, 1 (2018), 6.
[31]
Ruben Mayer, Graser Leon, Gupta Harshit, Saurez Enrique, and Ramachandran Umakishore. 2017. Emufog: Extensible and scalable emulation of large-scale fog computing infrastructures. In 2017 IEEE Fog World Congress (FWC). IEEE, 1--6.
[32]
D. Merkel. 2014. Docker: Lightweight Linux Containers for Consistent Development and Deployment. Linux J., Vol. 2014, 239, Article 2 (March 2014). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2600239.2600241
[33]
D. Mosberger and T. Jin. 1998. httperf: a tool for measuring web server performance. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev., Vol. 26 (Dec. 1998), 31--37. Issue 3.
[34]
Joydeep Mukherjee, Diwakar Krishnamurthy, Jerry Rolia, and Chris Hyser. 2013. Resource contention detection and management for consolidated workloads. In 2013 IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2013). IEEE, 294--302.
[35]
Joydeep Mukherjee, Diwakar Krishnamurthy, and Mea Wang. 2016. Subscriber-driven interference detection for cloud-based web services. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, Vol. 14, 1 (2016), 48--62.
[36]
Fredrik Österlind, Adam Dunkels, Joakim Eriksson, Niclas Finne, and Thiemo Voigt. 2006. Cross-level sensor network simulation with cooja. In First IEEE International Workshop on Practical Issues in Building Sensor Network Applications (SenseApp 2006).
[37]
Federica Paganelli, Stefano Turchi, and Dino Giuli. 2014. A web of things framework for restful applications and its experimentation in a smart city. IEEE Systems Journal, Vol. 10, 4 (2014), 1412--1423.
[38]
Georgios Z Papadopoulos, Julien Beaudaux, Antoine Gallais, Thomas Noel, and Guillaume Schreiner. 2013. Adding value to WSN simulation using the IoT-LAB experimental platform. In 2013 IEEE 9th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob). IEEE, 485--490.
[39]
Brian Ramprasad, Joydeep Mukherjee, and Marin Litoiu. 2018. A Smart Testing Framework for IoT Applications. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing Companion (UCC Companion). IEEE, 252--257.
[40]
Mark S. [n.d.]. collectl. http://collectl.sourceforge.net/Documentation.html. Last accessed: [2019-08--22].
[41]
Luis Sanchez, José Antonio Galache, Veronica Gutierrez, Jose Manuel Hernandez, Jesús Bernat, Alex Gluhak, and Tomás Garcia. 2011. Smartsantander: The meeting point between future internet research and experimentation and the smart cities. In 2011 Future Network & Mobile Summit. IEEE, 1--8.
[42]
Luis Sánchez, Jorge Lanza, Juan Santana, Rachit Agarwal, Pierre Raverdy, Tarek Elsaleh, Yasmin Fathy, SeungMyeong Jeong, Aris Dadoukis, Thanasis Korakis, et al. 2018. Federation of Internet of Things testbeds for the realization of a semantically-enabled multi-domain data marketplace. Sensors, Vol. 18, 10 (2018), 3375.
[43]
Z. Shelby, K. Hartke, and C. Bormann. 2014. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). RFC 7252.
[44]
Anshu Shukla, Shilpa Chaturvedi, and Yogesh Simmhan. 2017. RIoTBench: An IoT benchmark for distributed stream processing systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, Vol. 29, 21 (2017), e4257.
[45]
Will Sobel, Shanti Subramanyam, Akara Sucharitakul, Jimmy Nguyen, Hubert Wong, Arthur Klepchukov, Sheetal Patil, Armando Fox, and David Patterson. 2008. Cloudstone: Multi-platform, multi-language benchmark and measurement tools for web 2.0. In Proc. of CCA, Vol. 8. 228.
[46]
Giacomo Tanganelli, Carlo Vallati, and Enzo Mingozzi. 2015. CoAPthon: Easy development of CoAP-based IoT applications with Python. In 2015 IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT). IEEE, 63--68.
[47]
Floris Van den Abeele, Enri Dalipi, Ingrid Moerman, Piet Demeester, and Jeroen Hoebeke. 2016. Improving user interactions with constrained devices in the web of things. In 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT). IEEE, 153--158.
[48]
Vincent M Weaver. 2015. Self-monitoring overhead of the Linux perf_ event performance counter interface. In 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS). IEEE, 102--111.
[49]
Sherif Khattab Younan, Mina and Reem Bahgat. 2015. An Integrated Testbed Environment for the Web of Things. ICNS 2015 (2015), 83.
[50]
Deze Zeng, Song Guo, and Zixue Cheng. 2011. The web of things: A survey. JCM, Vol. 6, 6 (2011), 424--438.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)MockFog 2.0: Automated Execution of Fog Application Experiments in the CloudIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing10.1109/TCC.2021.307498811:1(58-70)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
  • (2023)Simulation for urban computing scenarios: An overview and research challenges2023 IEEE 10th International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing (CSCloud)/2023 IEEE 9th International Conference on Edge Computing and Scalable Cloud (EdgeCom)10.1109/CSCloud-EdgeCom58631.2023.00012(12-17)Online publication date: Jul-2023
  • (2022)CelestialProceedings of the 23rd ACM/IFIP International Middleware Conference10.1145/3528535.3531517(69-81)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICPE '20: Proceedings of the ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering
April 2020
319 pages
ISBN:9781450369916
DOI:10.1145/3358960
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 April 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Linux containers
  2. emulation testbed
  3. internet of things
  4. web of things

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

ICPE '20

Acceptance Rates

ICPE '20 Paper Acceptance Rate 15 of 62 submissions, 24%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 252 of 851 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)11
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)MockFog 2.0: Automated Execution of Fog Application Experiments in the CloudIEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing10.1109/TCC.2021.307498811:1(58-70)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
  • (2023)Simulation for urban computing scenarios: An overview and research challenges2023 IEEE 10th International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing (CSCloud)/2023 IEEE 9th International Conference on Edge Computing and Scalable Cloud (EdgeCom)10.1109/CSCloud-EdgeCom58631.2023.00012(12-17)Online publication date: Jul-2023
  • (2022)CelestialProceedings of the 23rd ACM/IFIP International Middleware Conference10.1145/3528535.3531517(69-81)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media