2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.suscom.2017.11.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative cost analysis of fault-tolerance mechanisms for availability on the cloud

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A comparative evaluation of two redundancy and proactive fault tolerance techniques was proposed in [50], based on the cloud providers' and consumers' requirements. This evaluation was proposed in terms of cloud environment's availability based on the consumers' viewpoint and cost of energy from the providers' viewpoint.…”
Section: Research Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A comparative evaluation of two redundancy and proactive fault tolerance techniques was proposed in [50], based on the cloud providers' and consumers' requirements. This evaluation was proposed in terms of cloud environment's availability based on the consumers' viewpoint and cost of energy from the providers' viewpoint.…”
Section: Research Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Replication of tasks is a fault tolerance technique that applies redundancy. Sampaio and Barbosa [13] recently showed that the technique leads to increase of monetary costs since it implies the use of additional resources. Also Long et al [14] addressed the problem of SIs unreliability caused by the fluctuations of the bidding prices (i.e., SI may be terminated at any time when the bidding price is lower than the spot price).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hormati, et al 2014), optimal replica placement (e.g. An et al 2014), stop and copy VM migration (Sampaio and Barbosa 2018), and entity reputation management (Abawajy 2011). For system level failures, the primary focus is minimising recovery time (Singh et al 2016).…”
Section: Reliabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%