2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.03.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A multi-dimensional hierarchical performance evaluation model for edge cloud platform

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There are different perspectives of approaching AHP for cloud computing performance measurements as mentioned in the literature review section (e.g. Golmohammadi et al, 2012;Garg et al, 2013;Taha et al, 2014;Ghazali et al, 2017;Zhao et al, 2018). However, unlike other studies of AHP implementation to cloud computing performance measurement, this study dissects the "best practice" (Kouatli, 2014(Kouatli, , 2016 performance criteria in IT environment, in general, and cloud computing environment, in specific, to achieve the PPP by benchmarking the divisions of a cloud service provider environment.…”
Section: Discussion and Implicationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There are different perspectives of approaching AHP for cloud computing performance measurements as mentioned in the literature review section (e.g. Golmohammadi et al, 2012;Garg et al, 2013;Taha et al, 2014;Ghazali et al, 2017;Zhao et al, 2018). However, unlike other studies of AHP implementation to cloud computing performance measurement, this study dissects the "best practice" (Kouatli, 2014(Kouatli, , 2016 performance criteria in IT environment, in general, and cloud computing environment, in specific, to achieve the PPP by benchmarking the divisions of a cloud service provider environment.…”
Section: Discussion and Implicationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on consumer perspective, Ghazali et al (2017) studied the selection of cloud service provider based on the security perspective where the AHP technique was proposed as mechanism of security measurement as a trust (SMaaT). Zhao et al (2018), on the contrary, also used the AHP model, but to measure the overall performance score for edge cloud computing platform where five categories were used for pairwise comparison. These were capacity, performance (speed), reliability, agility and equilibrium, and each category is classified into three levels.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Secondly, the reward and punishment factors [16] are introduced to calculate the trust value of abnormal nodes according to the overall historical interaction, and the reward and punishment factors as follows:…”
Section: Reward and Punishment Mechanismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The trust value of malicious entities remains stable at a low point and has a downward trend.To further verify that the trust evaluation model proposed in this paper can effectively distinguish between normal entities and malicious entities, k-means clustering with the number of clusters of 2 is carried out with the score given by the evaluation model as the characteristic data, to obtain the detection rate of the model. The trust evaluation model proposed in this paper based on the graph model and semantic time window is compared with the DTEM model presented in the literature[13] and the RFSN model mentioned in the literature[14] in terms of detection rate. The comparison results are shown in (b) of Figure3.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%