See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277594751

Cloud Computing for Cloud Manufacturing: Benefits and Limitations

Article  in  Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · August 2015

DOI: 10.1115/1.4030209

CITATIONS READS

51 5,086

3 authors:

Peng Wang Robert X Gao

University of Kentucky Case Western Reserve University
65 PUBLICATIONS   1,523 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zhaoyan Andy Fan

Oregon State University
76 PUBLICATIONS   496 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advanced Manufacturing Process Monitoring View project

Deep Learning for Dynamical System Estimation and Prediction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peng Wang on 23 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Cloud Computing for Cloud
Manufacturing: Benefits and
Limitations
Peng Wang
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, OH 44106
e-mail: pxw206@case.edu
Robert X. Gao1
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, OH 44106
e-mail: Robert.Gao@case.edu
Zhaoyan Fan
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT 06268
e-mail: zfan@engr.uconn.edu
Cloud computing, as a new paradigm for aggregating computing
resources and delivering services over the Internet, is of consider-
able interest to both academia and the industry. In this paper, the
main characteristics of cloud computing are summarized, in view
of its application to the manufacturing industry. Analytic models
such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method for selecting
appropriate cloud services are analyzed, with respect to computa-
tional cost and network communication that present a bottleneck
for effective utilization of this new infrastructure. The review pre-
sented in this paper aims to assist academic researchers and man-
ufacturing enterprises in obtaining an overview of the state-of-
the-knowledge of cloud computing when exploring this emerging
platform for service. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4030209]
Keywords: cloud computing, virtualization, performance
evaluation, cloud manufacturing
1 Introduction
As an emerging infrastructure for delivering on-demand serv-
ice, cloud computing has enabled the transition of computation
from owning, operating, and managing computing resources such
as platform, hardware, and software, to renting these resources,
depending on their quality and service requirement. Enabled by
the Internet, cloud computing has already demonstrated a wide
range of applications, from financial management [1], pharmaceu-
tical development [2], and manufacturing [3] to academic research
[4]. Enabled by cloud computing, owning a high-performance
computer locally no longer presents a hard constraint for research-
ers who perform complex computations [5] or companies that
need to promptly respond to remote service request [6]. For such
computational needs, cloud-based computing resources can bene-
fit customers in three aspects [7]:
(1) Lower start-up and operating costs: by employing a “pay-
as-you-go” system, cloud-based service helps reduce ten-
ants’ up-front investment and computing resource waste.
1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
November 19, 2014; final manuscript received March 10, 2015; published online
July 8, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Xun Xu.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
C 2015 by ASME
Copyright V
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
(2) Scalability and ease of access: by aggregation of distributed
computing resources over the Internet, a cloud-based serv-
ice can scale up or down per tenants’ service demand.
(3) Lower risk on resource provision: by outsourcing the com-
puting resources to the clouds, tenants shift their risks
resulting from misestimating computing load or equipment
shut-downs to cloud providers who have expertise and
experience on managing such risks.
For the manufacturing industry, cloud computing has the poten-
tial to introduce a new mechanism for more cost-effective equip-
ment and process monitoring by relaying local monitoring data
via cloud-based servers to remote analytic centers where expertise
is available for advanced analysis and rational decision-making
[8–10]. In addition, cloud computing can boost the efficiency of
procedures in manufacturing that need a large amount of compu-
tational effort, such as modeling during the design process
[11,12]. Toward this goal, this paper aims to answer the following
questions that are relevant to introducing cloud computing to
manufacturing:
(1) What benefits does cloud computing bring to manufactur-
ing such that cloud-based service should be considered as
the major platform for data storage and analysis?
(2) What criteria should be considered in order to choose the
most appropriate cloud service, given that there are multi-
ple cloud providers offering different types of services?
(3) What are the specific challenges when adopting cloud com-
puting for manufacturing, considering the specific require-
ments associate with manufacturing environment, such as
the large amount of sensing data acquired during manufac-
turing processes, multiphysics nature of the data, real-time
or quasi real-time response requirement, etc.?
Motivated by cloud computing, the evolution of CM can be
regarded as a manufacturing version of cloud computing, realized
by aggregating distributed manufacturing resources, then extract-
ing and virtualizing them as services. Cloud computing provides
the core technical support for CM and enables advanced concepts
in manufacturing, such as networked and virtual manufacturing
[13,14]. Data obtained during a manufacturing process, such as
force [15], temperature [16], and acoustic emission [17] are
uploaded via Internet to cloud, on which data storage and analysis
are performed, providing the basis for data and information shar-
ing [18,19]. Such sharing over interconnected manufacturing
resources leverages the original procedures in the manufacturing
life cycle, from product design, production, condition, and process
monitoring to maintenance decision-making and inventory man-
agement [20–23]. For example, maintenance decision-making can
benefit from the exchanged knowledge and experience by compar-
ing results from condition monitoring analysis to established in-
formation base through techniques such as crowdsourcing [24].
Furthermore, processes involved in manufacturing can be
extracted and virtualized as individual services, fulfilled by serv-
ice brokers other than manufacturers themselves, where the virtu-
alization is enabled by advanced Internet of things (IoT), such as
MTConnect, high performance computing, and storage via cloud
computing, as shown in Fig. 1.
A major feature of cloud computing is multiple tenant-oriented
service, meaning different service users can run different plat-
forms or software concurrently on the same infrastructure. For
cloud service providers, upholding obligations to customers while
maximizing utilization of the cloud infrastructure are dual require-
ment. However, it is in general very difficult to anticipate all pos-
sible service request scenarios [25]. Furthermore, dynamic
provision of computing resource is required to adapt to changes in
the service load, especially when unanticipated service request
surges. An efficient resource management scheme would require
dynamic assignment of service requests from customers with
AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 040901-1

Fig. 1 CM enabled by cloud computing
minimal resource needed to satisfy the acceptable fulfilment of
service level agreements offered by cloud providers. This is
enabled by two main supporting technologies: virtualization and
data distribution.
Another important aspect of cloud computing is data storage
and management. In cloud computing, data storage and data proc-
essing are not executed on the same device. Data uploaded by ten-
ants is flexibly distributed across a wide range of resource,
especially when a large volume of data is involved. As an exam-
ple, real-time manufacturing process monitoring may incur data
production at the level of gigabytes/hour, making it difficult to
store on a single server. Solution to this problem is distributed
data storage, for which data consistency poses a challenge, when
data are extracted from a broad range of replicated data sources at
the data processing server. In addition, when replicating data
across various data centers, the system needs to be aware of the
exact data location while taking latencies and workload into con-
sideration. This affects the quality of service (QoS), which need
be considered when selecting cloud service providers [26].
Prior studies have reviewed the benefits and challenges of cloud
computing. Armbrust et al. [7] summarized several critical
obstacles to the advancement of cloud computing, in terms of
adaptation, growth, and policy, and identified opportunities to
overcome these obstacles. Studies in Refs. [25,27–30] highlighted
the key concepts, architectural principles, state-of-the-art imple-
mentation, and research challenges associate with cloud comput-
ing. Garcıa-Valls et al. [6] identified challenges in supporting
real-time applications in the cloud, and presented recent advance-
ments in real-time virtualization and cloud computing. Manvi and
Shyam [31] conducted a survey on infrastructure as a service
(IaaS) in cloud computing, focusing on resource provisioning,
allocation, mapping, and adaption. Garg et al. [32] proposed a
framework that can allow customers to evaluate cloud offerings
and rank them based on their ability to meet the user’s QoS
requirements. Leveraging the previous work, this paper focuses
on the perspective of applying cloud computing to benefitting
manufacturing. The main technologies supporting cloud comput-
ing for manufacturing are discussed and summarized, considering
the specific challenges associated with a manufacturing environ-
ment. Moreover, this paper presents an example for choosing a
cloud service provider with respect to different criteria, based on
the specific demand from a customer.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, charac-
teristics and benefits of cloud computing, together with supporting
technologies, are summarized. Section 3 discusses selection of
computing services, with respect to cost and performance. In
040901-2 / Vol. 137, AUGUST 2015
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Sec. 4, limitations of the current cloud computing techniques
when applied to manufacturing are summarized. Conclusions are
drawn in Sec. 5.
2 Benefit of Cloud Computing for Manufacturing
2.1 Definition and Architecture of Cloud Computing. To
date, a variety of definitions and descriptions of cloud computing
have been developed, with the definition by the national institute
of standards and technologies (NIST) being widely accepted:
“Cloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient,
on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable com-
puting resources that can be rapidly provisioned and released with
minimal management effort or service provider interaction” [33].
When applied to manufacturing, cloud computing refers to the
execution of a specific application, with data transferred over the
Internet, stored, and processed over a pool of distributed hard-
ware, system, and software resources. Apart from storage and
computing methods for operating computational clusters or grids,
computing resources provisioned by a cloud are: (1) aggregated as
a pool of computing resources, such as central processing unit
(CPU), memory, disk storage, and network bandwidth over dis-
tributed devices; (2) monitored and controlled to provide real-
time resource management for the provider; and (3) automatically
and dynamically abstracted and assigned to multiple tenants with-
out human intervention, and elastically provisioned and released.
The first two features are controlled by cloud providers and hidden
from the tenants, generating the perception that cloud resource is
infinite when a service request is submitted. The third feature pro-
vides one of the most significant benefits for tenants when per-
forming cloud computing: elasticity in resource allocation and
access, which is discussed in detail in Sec. 2.2.
The architecture of a cloud computing environment can be
divided into three layers (see Fig. 2), corresponding to three types
of cloud services:
(1) IaaS aggregates computing resources (e.g., CPU, memory,
disk storage, network I/O) at the infrastructure layer, then
abstracts these resources as an individual machine pre-
sented to tenants, based on a virtualization technique. The
benefit is that the tenant has exclusive and complete domin-
ion to control the entire software stack. One example of
IaaS is Amazon EC2 [34], which enables tenants to manage
virtualized instances on aggregated servers to fulfil comput-
ing capacity, joined with storage capacity enabled by the
Amazon simple storage service (Amazon S3) [35].
Fig. 2 Structure of cloud computing
Transactions of the ASME
 (2) Platform as a service (PaaS) provides resources at the plat-
form layer, such as operating system (OS) and software
development environment, to allow tenants to develop
applications and manage their configuration settings. Goo-
gle App Engine [36] is a resource that provides an applica-
tion program interface for implementing web applications.
(3) Software as a service (SaaS) provides computing resources
(i.e., infrastructure and platform) as services to execute
applications developed by tenants, achieving better per-
formance, availability, and lower operating cost.
For upper level service tenants, management or control of the
resources provided by a lower service layer is not a concern. For
instance, a tenant employing PaaS or SaaS does not need to be
concerned about how computational resources are multiplexed
and shared. In comparison, a tenant working in manufacturing
processes that generate a large amount of process data and require
real-time computing for feedback control of machine operations
and part quality is best directed to work with IaaS providers, as it
is the most-suited service for data transmission, storage, and
processing.
2.2 Characteristics of Cloud Computing. The major charac-
teristics of cloud computing include aggregated and shared
resource pooling, worldwide distribution and ubiquitous network
access, multitenancy, and service-orientation. These unique fea-
tures differentiate cloud computing and cloud-based services from
the traditional operational methods. For a cloud customer in the
manufacturing industry, various benefits can be expected from
using cloud-related services.
Elasticity. Traditional hosting services generally provide a
fixed number of resources in a fixed amount of time, meaning that
users have limited ability to respond when their usage is rapidly
changing [34]. In other words, users are required to provision
computing resources for the peak usage, and allow the resource to
remain idle at nonpeak times. In comparison, cloud computing
can instantly respond to changes (scaling up or down) of comput-
ing requirements, allowing tenants to have control over resource
usage by relieving resources at nonpeak times and requesting
more resources at peak times. As an example, Amazon EC2 can
be shown to be able to instantly respond to service request within
minutes.
To illustrate how elasticity would help reduce resource waste,
assuming a manufacturing plant contains five production lines
with all lines running in the daytime and only one running at
night. Each production line requires 50 server-hours during the
day for real-time online condition monitoring and other data to
provide information for control, maintenance, and decision-
making. If management wants to establish a data center, a total of
50  5 ¼ 250 server-hours or 250/24 ¼ 11 servers are required to
satisfy the request at the peak time, although over half of the
resource would stay idle for half of the time. Alternatively, if the
plant chooses a cloud-based service, resource can be scaled up or
down elastically according to the actual utilization during the day,
resulting in 50/2  4 þ 50 ¼ 150 server-hours. Comparing to 250
server-hours for localized computing, this presents a 40% reduc-
tion in server-hours.
Economy. In the above example, if the plant management
decides to build their own data center, an estimated cost of
11  $4000 (unit price of a regular server) ¼ $44,000 would be
incurred for up-front investment. Furthermore, such an equipment
investment’s life span would be around 3 yr, according to the
commonly used financial models in the United States [7]. If how-
ever the plant management considers renting a cloud service to
build the data center, a unit price of less than 44,000/
(36  365  150) ¼ $0.022 per server-hour will make cloud-based
computing an attractive option. Additionally, this unit price would
actually include charges for renting computing resources, data
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
storages, and data transferring in/out of the cloud. For example,
Amazon EC2 charges $0.10 for one optimized computing CPU
per hour, $0.05 per GB-month for data storage, and around $0.10
per GB for data transfer out of EC2 [34]. If the hypothetical man-
ufacturing plan only transfers its data to EC2 (free for data trans-
fer-in) for computation, and transfers out or stores the analysis
results, a cloud service would be more economical than owning a
data center.
Besides economic benefits of computation as discussed above,
cloud-based services also help in the following aspects [37,38]:
(1) reduce up-front investment on hardware/software by utilizing
the pay-as-you-go service model; (2) avoid maintenance fees on
data centers, which require a highly controlled environment; and
(3) reduce other costs such as operating cost, staff salary, etc.
Risk Shift. The first risk in the local data center is closely
related to misestimating the computing load. While overprovi-
sioning of computing resources causes waste, underprovisioning
may jeopardize the operation of a manufacturing process. Under-
provisioning happens when new measurement capabilities are
added to monitor the process, or servers are shut down and no
back-up is provided. Two cases of underprovisioning were
reported in Ref. [7], and the conclusion was that users will desert
an underprovisioned service when the peak load equals the data
center’s usable capacity [39]. With elasticity and command-based
characteristics of cloud services, the workload risk will be shifted
from a manufacturing plant to cloud providers. Another common
risk occurring in computing equipment is data loss associated
with hardware/software shuts down or damage. For such type of
problems, cloud providers typically have a strategy for system
recovery and data backup, which effectively reduces risks [40,41].
For a manufacturing plant, this translates into reduced cost and
improved profit.
2.3 Supporting Technologies. Cloud-based storage and com-
puting are performed on distributed resources over the Internet
with two options: either a single piece of physical equipment is
shared by multiple tenants, or multiple pieces of equipment are
aggregated to serve one tenant (this is typically the case with data
storage). Accordingly, there are two main techniques to serve the
two functions: virtualization and distributed file storage.
Virtualization. Virtualization is a technique that makes single
pieces of physical equipment multiplexed by a small, privileged
kernel, commonly referred to as a hypervisor, providing tenants
with separate environments to execute their applications. Differ-
ent virtualization techniques are applied to different working
environments, but all share some common characteristics. Virtual-
ization for IaaS is generally called “machine virtualization,” and
allows a single physical machine to emulate the behavior of multi-
ple machines, with the possibility to host multiple and heterogene-
ous OSs/platforms on the same hardware. The subdivision of a
physical machine into several independent portions, also called
virtual machines (VMs), is defined and managed by a hypervisor
based on tenants’ service requests, while VMs are assigned to
implement different tasks.
Extending from machine virtualization, OS level virtualization
is designed for PaaS, emulating multiple OS instances on a single
OS. Also, application level virtualization in SaaS provides appli-
cation developed for a virtual instruction set. Another important
technique that helps link the physical host to outside tenants is
network virtualization [37,42], which emulates network setups in
software, allowing multiple VMs to run on the same physical host
with their own intellectual property (IP) addresses, connected
together in a virtual bridge topology [4].
Besides improving the level of physical source utilization and
increasing the benefit to cloud service providers, virtualization
provision, from a tenant’s perspective, is highly specialized and
customized [43]. The execution environment may contain specific
OS, developing languages or software. Also, virtualization
AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 040901-3
 provides tenants with privileges within their VMs without com-
promising the isolation or host integrity [4]. It should be noted,
however, that some types of hardware resources are nonpartition-
able, for example, the disk I/O, network I/O, and L2 cache. This
means different VMs serving other tenants may compromise the
nonsliceable resources, or in another words, the application in a
VM cannot be executed in a fully isolated computing environ-
ment. Moreover, service requests from tenants are generally diffi-
cult to predict, making it difficult for a VM hypervisor to judge
and assign corresponding resources and provide stable perform-
ance to each VM. Thus, a significant criterion for cloud service
selection is the QoS. Current cloud providers only guarantee lim-
ited performance or QoS available, e.g., Amazon EC2 offers only
guarantee on the availability of resources, but not on performance
of its VMs [34].
Distribution and Interaction of Databases. The shift of data
storage and computing away from desktops and local servers to
distributed data centers across the Internet results in limitations as
well as new opportunities. Unlike the traditional format, new data
storage type in cloud computing, known as a distributed file sys-
tem, partition files uploaded from tenants into several portions
(also known as chunks) and stores them in a distributed server. As
an example, the Google file system (GFS) [36] is a representative
distributed file system that is specially designed to provide effi-
cient and reliable access to data using large clusters of commodity
servers. GFS architecture includes a hypervisor, multiple sliced
servers (VMs) and multiple clients. The hypervisor running in the
driver domain is responsible for assigning storage resources and
managing uploaded data. Each uploaded file is split into multiple
subfiles, stored in different chunk servers (VMs) in the guest do-
main, while each subfile is identified by a subfile handle, which is
a globally unique 64-bit number that is assigned by the hypervisor
when the subfile is first created, as shown in Fig. 3.
3 Selection of Cloud Service
Several cloud providers are presently in the market, providing
services targeted at varying types of demands, from enterprise to
individual tenants. As an example, Amazon EC2 provides the ten
family services, with each family containing different types of
services for each request load (see Table 1) [34]. In general,
selecting a most appropriate service per tenant-specific require-
ments is a challenge to be faced.
Previous efforts have tried to find a standardized method to
measure and compare different cloud services given different
application scenarios (e.g., manufacturing), based on a set of
business-relevant key performance indicators, such as account-
ability, agility, assurance of service, cost, performance, security,
privacy, and usability. This section provides a review of cloud
service selection methods and classifies them into two groups:
Fig. 3 Structure of file distribution system
040901-4 / Vol. 137, AUGUST 2015
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Table 1 Configuration and cost of EC2 instances
Memory Storage
Family Type vCPU (GB) (GB) Cost/h
General m3.large 2 7.5 32 $0.140
Compute optimized c3.large 2 7 32 $0.105
GPU instance g2.2large 8 26 15 $0.650
Memory optimized r3.large 2 15 32 $0.175
Storage optimized i2.xlarge 4 14 800 $0.853
utilization cost-based and performance quality-based. After a dis-
cussion on cost calculation and optimization, QoS indicators are
summarized and common service selection approaches, such as
AHP and utility function are reviewed.
3.1 Utilization Cost Calculation and Optimization. Cloud-
based service provides competent computing capability with elas-
ticity advantages, and becomes more attractive if the cost is also
competitive. Kondo et al. [44] compared and contrasted the per-
formance and monetary cost-benefits of clouds for desktop grid
applications, ranging in computational size and storage. Assunç~ao
et al. [4] investigated the benefits that organizations can reap by
using cloud computing providers to augment the computing
capacity of their local infrastructure, and sought for an optimal
scheduling strategy of fully utilizing local and remote resources
by minimizing cost and maximizing computing performance.
Deelman et al. [45] researched the cost benefit of cloud computing
by a case study about Montage calculation using Amazon EC2
and S3 as computational and storage resources, in the context of
different execution situations (i.e., computing only or joint comput-
ing and storage). It was found that cloud computing offers a cost-
effective solution for data-intensive applications, since the storage
costs were insignificant as compared to the CPU costs for a data-
intensive application with a small computational granularity.
It is not easy to directly compare prices of cloud services, due
to the unique features associated with a specific QoS. Even the
same provider offers different VMs (e.g., instances in EC2) when
serving different potential markets. To tackle this problem, a com-
mon method is to normalize the cost according to the configuration
volume, i.e., the cost of one unit of CPU, memory, storage, and net-
work bandwidth. Garg et al. [32] indicates that the expression
p
(1)
CPUa  RAMb  DATAc  NETd
can be applied to calculate the normalized price of a VM with
price p, while a–d are weights for each resource attribute. The
weights are initialized artificially, varying from application to
application, according to the emphasis and ranking of the impor-
tance of resource attributes. Generally, cloud providers offer two
provisioning plans for computing resources: reservation and on-
demand. A reservation plan works for the estimated or standard
computing load, while on-demand serves for the unpredicted com-
puting load change. The cost of utilizing a reservation plan is usu-
ally less than an on-demand plan. For example, the unit price of
m3.large is $0.140 and $0.043 for an on-demand and 3 yr contract,
respectively. Chaisiri et al. [46,47] proposed an optimal cloud
resource provisioning algorithm by formulating a stochastic pro-
gramming model to automatically seek for a best advance reserva-
tion of resources, taking the service demand and price uncertainty
into full consideration. The utilization cost is first generalized into
the multiple stage formulation, and then expressed as a function
with two parts representing reserved/expected and uncertainty,
and finally solved by searching for the minimum of the function
according to a set of boundaries.
3.2 Performance-Based Service Ranking and Selection.
Cloud-based service is performed over the Internet, making it
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Service performance indicators

Performance indicator Description

Response time Quantifying the time taken by the cloud providers to respond for service request, e.g., EC2 response time is several minutes
Accuracy Quantifying the difference between user experience and promised service level by cloud providers
Transparency Qualitatively measuring users’ usability affected by changes in service in the context of fast evolution of cloud-based service
Interoperability Qualitatively measuring the ability of a service to interact with other services offered by same or different providers
Stability Quantifying the variability in the performance of a service, which is largely and easily affected by the total VMs and computing
load
Reliability Quantifying the probability of a service operating without failure for assigned computing load and promised service level
Throughput Quantifying the maximum tasks can be handled and completed by a service per unit time
Scalability Qualitatively measuring the ability to handle a large number of application requests simultaneously

similar to a web service: SaaS is an almost web-based application
while IaaS provides a virtual environment for platform deploy-
ment, monitored by web-based monitoring tools. As a result, the
majority of current research on cloud service evaluation is derived
from the web service evaluation methods. A common way is to
extract and select important service performance indicators, based
on which an analytical model can be established to rank alterna-
tive services by quantifying the intrinsic attributes and comparing
them to the overall goal. To establish the analytical model, AHP
method and utility function are reviewed, considering different
performance evaluation attributes.
Performance Indicators. For cloud computing especially in the
context of IaaS, the performance can be evaluated based on both
qualitative and quantitative indicators, with the most important
ones summarized in Table 2 [32]. The problem becomes how to
aggregate and fuse the information expressed by these attributes
to quantitatively compare several service candidates to fit the
goals and constraints specified by the tenants.
AHP-Based Selection. The AHP is a wide-spread structured
technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions, espe-
cially for group decision-making, based on mathematics and psy-
chology. AHP provides a comprehensive and rational framework
for structuring a decision-making problem, evaluating alternative
solutions by quantifying intrinsic attributes and relating them to
the overall goal, and providing a best-suited solution. An AHP-
based rating process comprises three main steps: decomposition,
comparative judgment, and synthesis [48]. In the decomposition
stage, the decision problem is decomposed into a hierarchy of
more easily comprehended subproblems. The purpose of this step
is to determine the layer and elements/attributes contained in each
layer of the hierarchy. An example of AHP hierarchy of cloud
service selection with respect to performance attributes is shown
in Fig. 4, which contains three layers with service alternatives as
the bottom layer, and attribute as the middle layer under the over-
all goal. In the comparative judgment stage, pair comparisons
between elements are conducted, with respect to their impact on
elements above them in the hierarchy. Two types of numerical pri-
orities are assigned to connect each element in the hierarchy:
{wA1, wA2,…,wAn,…, wNn} represents the influence of alternatives
with respect to the attributes; and {w1, w2,…,wn} denotes the pri-
ority with respect to the overall selection. Finally, numerical fac-
tors are calculated for each of the alternatives, which represent the
alternatives’ relative ability to achieve the decision goal. The pri-
ority of each alternative in Fig. 4 can be calculated as
A framework for evaluating cloud offerings and ranking them
based on their ability to meet tenants’ QoS requirement is pro-
posed in Refs. [32,49], by comparing the service alternative via
performance attributes and generating the global ranking of serv-
ice based on AHP. This work also addresses the challenge of dif-
ferent dimensional units of various QoS attributes by providing a
uniform way to evaluate the relative ranking of cloud services for
each type of QoS attribute. Research in Ref. [50] explored the
techniques of aggregating and evaluating the multilevel QoS pa-
rameters of cloud services, which facilitate the ranking and selec-
tion of IaaS and SaaS services according to users’ requirements.
An AHP hierarchy of a cloud service weighting model is defined,
in which QoS parameters of both IaaS and SaaS are considered as
the ranking criteria and are layered and categorized based on their
influential relations. Similar work can be found in Ref. [51],
which introduced an AHP-based SaaS service selection approach
to objectively score and rank services.
Utility Function Based Selection. Unlike AHP that focuses on
the relative importance of decision criteria through pair compari-
son, a utility function quantifies the preferences of a decision
maker and aggregates several of the decision maker’s degrees of
satisfaction toward a particular criterion. Zeng et al. [52] dis-
cussed cloud service selection depending on the trade-off between
the maximized gain and minimized cost, through two steps: (1)
searching all alternatives that satisfy tenants’ requirements; (2)
finding the optimal service from the candidates to reach the trade-
off between performance and cost. Limam and Boutaba [53] pro-
posed a reputation-aware service selection framework to rate SaaS
services, with the aim of reducing the time and risk of the selec-
tion and utilization of software services. The reputation depends
on the feedback of users, which is formed by aggregating the per-
ceived utility of the customer’s baseline satisfaction and the per-
ceived disconfirmation. Then, the utility is calculated according to
quality monitoring results. In Table 3, commonly used methods
for service selection are summarized.

2 3 2 32 3
PA wA1 wA2 wA3    wAn w1
6 7 6 76 7
6 PB 7 6 wB1 wB2 wB3    wBn 76 w2 7
6 7 6 76 7
6. 7 ¼ 6. 76 . 7 (2)
6 .. 7 6 .. 76 .. 7
4 5 4 54 5
Fig. 4 AHP hierarchy for performance-based cloud service
PN wN1 wN2 wN3    wNn wn selection

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 040901-5

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3 Comparison of service selection methods
Method Input Output
AHP Attribute and decision matrix Weights of alternatives
Utility function Decision matrix A subset of alternatives
4 Limitations of Cloud Computing
The IoT for CM allows for the collection of real-time process
and condition data from machine equipment networked across the
manufacturing enterprise. These data and information provide a
holistic perspective of the operational state of the equipment for
remote monitoring, diagnosis, and prognosis. One significant
nature involved in this process to perform real-time monitoring is
the large variety of data types and large amount of data, due to a
variety of measurement techniques with high sampling rate
employed for CM. While processing of different data types can be
facilitated by machine-to-machine communication techniques
such as MTConnect [21], massive data to be processed pose a
major challenge on the current cloud computing technologies,
when applied to manufacturing. A good understanding of the limi-
tations of cloud computing on computational and network per-
formance can help in:
• selecting computing services to ensure the quality of data
analysis
• selecting sensor type to achieve optimal trade-off between
data resolution and data processing quality
• enabling intelligent data transmission, i.e., transmitting col-
lected raw measurement data or extracted features per-
formed by local agents, in view of the energy efficiency
[54–56].
For information and knowledge sharing through crowdsourcing
for cloud-based design, monitoring, and decision-making, cyber-
security is a significant challenge. This refers to protecting IP,
sensitive information, and the security of devices and assets net-
worked in the IoT [57]. Existing infrastructure, such as supervi-
sory control and data acquisition networks, can be a significant
vulnerability, given its designed function [58]. In addition, chal-
lenge lies in the filtering of individual enterprise-sensitive infor-
mation while maximizing the pooling of information sharing.
4.1 Computational Performance. Virtualization brings a
number of challenging issues to maintaining stable performance
of each VM. The most popular option among current cloud serv-
ices is to search for QoS-based resource management to trade-off
execution quality by the assigned resources via a load balancing
mechanism or high availability mechanism [59]. There are a num-
ber of reported work on dynamic resource management, for
instance, based on the game theory [60] or k-means clustering
[61]. However, these efforts only address the scaling problem of
one resource or a single-tier. Sotomayor et al. [62] found that
resource provisioning encompasses three dimensions as hardware
resources, software resources, and the time during which those
resources must be guaranteed to be available. A complete resource
provisioning model is also needed to allow resource consumers to
specify requirements across these three dimensions. Manvi and
Shyam [31] surveyed several resource provisioning models and
evaluated them with proposed performance metrics including reli-
ability, QoS, delay and control overhead. Buyya and Ranjan [63]
pointed out various challenges in addressing the problem of ena-
bling QoS-oriented resource management in distributed servers to
satisfy competing applications’ demand for computing services,
including:
040901-6 / Vol. 137, AUGUST 2015
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
When to consider References
When there are multiple attributes and [48,50,51]
limited explicit selection options
When it is not easy to aggregate or [52,53]
compare attributes
(1) How to ensure that requests finish their execution within
estimated completion times in the presence of resource per-
formance fluctuations, especially in the large-scale, decen-
tralized and distributed systems?
(2) How to fulfil the movement or transfer of large volumes of
data, in the scenario that data are stored in distributed
devices?
(3) How to develop resource prediction models for facilitating
proactive scaling in the cloud so that hosted applications
are able to withstand the variation in workload with the
least drop in performance and availability?
Iosup et al. [5] attempted to obtain an answer experimentally
for the question of whether the performance of clouds is sufficient
for executing many-tasks based on scientific computing, from
the perspective of performance metrics, including resource
acquisition/release time, computing performance, I/O perform-
ance, and reliability. The computational performance evaluation
results indicated that the floating point and double-precision float
operations are six to eight times slower than the theoretical maxi-
mum. A potential reason for this is the overrun or thrashing of the
memory caches by the working set of other applications sharing
the same physical machines. The performance and cost of clouds
were also compared, with workload traces taken from grids and
parallel production infrastructure. A conclusion was reached that
the performance of all the cloud environments investigated is low
for high demand usage and should only be considered when
resources are needed instantly and temporarily. Similar work is
found in Refs. [64,65]. Huber et al. [64] executed several bench-
marks to analyze the performance of native and virtualized sys-
tems. The results showed that the performance overhead for CPU
and memory virtualization were up to 5% and 40%, respectively.
The performance of floating point operations were demonstrated
to be within 3–5% of overall drops, up to a 20% drop for some
benchmarks. The main cause for the overall performance drop
was suggested to stem from the allocation of large memory areas.
Although different experiments delivered different results, it is
found that the performance overhead of VM would increase, and
the overhead is determined by specific test bed and resource allo-
cation technique.
Schad et al. [66] has carried out a study of the performance in
terms of CPU efficiency and memory speed on Amazon EC2.
Experiments were performed at different levels (e.g., single EC2
instance, multiple instances, and different locations), and different
types of EC2 instances were taken into consideration. The experi-
mental results indicated that regardless of the CPU efficiency or
memory speed, the performance is far less stable than one would
expect. For example, the variance for memory speed is around
8–10%, while the variance of a local physical cluster is only
0.3%. A possible reason is the different system types used by vir-
tual instances. Also, the variance on the cloud was compared with
the variance on a local physical cluster, which indicated that the
same MapReduce job suffered from a significantly higher per-
formance variance on EC2.
4.2 Network Bottleneck. Besides sharing resources such as
CPU and storage facilities that has an effect on cloud computing
performance, sharing I/O resources also affects the network per-
formance. Resources of network links and bandwidth are shared
Transactions of the ASME
 by multiple VMs, which are enabled by the network I/O virtuali-
zation technologies. A common way to achieve I/O virtualization
is VM device queues, which is to relieve the host CPU from multi-
plexing and controlling the packets to and from VMs. An advant-
age of VM device queues is that it can reduce the cost of network
devices and the port density requirements on switches. But I/O
virtualization also introduces following challenges:
(1) Complexity of packet multiplexing: when a data packet
arrives, the server must determine that which VM should
the file be delivered to based on its header. What’s more,
kinds of network protocols make it more difficult to iden-
tify the headers and look up the bridging table. For exam-
ple, Barham et al. [67] pointed out that 30–40% of
execution time for a network to transmit or receive opera-
tion was spent in the VM monitor (VMM), for the remap-
ping of addresses contained in the transmitted data
package.
(2) Increasing line rate and workloads: A line rate of more than
10 Gbps is expected to appear in future data centers. The
increased workload can degrade the bottlenecks of either
CPUs or memories due to the increased communication
between the driver domain (VMM) and guest domains
(VMs). References [68] and [69] demonstrated that the
overhead of CPUs and latency increase with the package
rate.
Shafer [70] has evaluated the effect of I/O virtualization on
storage and network performance, on a variety of configurations
of private clouds based on Eucalyptus. Three different configura-
tions were compared and discussed: a local disk accessed directly
from the host domain, a local disk mapped directly into the guest
domain, and a remote disk located across the network. For storage
evaluation, it was found that the storage bandwidth compared to
the nonvirtualized environment (110 MB/s bandwidth for both file
reading and writing) is very poor, and write and read bandwidth
decreased by 98% and 38% when accessing local storage. When
accessing remote storage, the write and read bandwidth decreases
by 83% and 54%, respectively. The authors found that the poor
performance of the virtualized environment was due to the syn-
chronous mechanism where the system sends a single request
disk, waits for the reply, and then issues another request, as
opposed to queuing requests. For network evaluation, it is indi-
cated that the bandwidth to the driver domain is unexpectedly
lower than bandwidth to a different host, and achieved bandwidth
fails to saturate a gigabit Ethernet link.
Bourguiba et al. [71] has investigated the system behavior
under very high load to determine the maximum capacity and
which component caused this bottleneck. One driver domain, as
well as four guest domains were established and instantiated using
Xen, and reception/forwarding throughput of VM with regard to
different data packets’ rate. The experimental results indicated
that the VM throughput is almost ten times lower compared to the
driver domain one. The most likely reason for the finding is the
costly communication between driver domain and VMs in guest
domain, which involves the redundant request by driver domain
for a grant to access the VM and the grant revoking by the VM.
Meanwhile, memory latency was provided to be the major issue
causing the data transmission bottleneck.
A similar study about I/O virtualized network performance
evaluation is found in Ref. [68], which presented detailed work on
performance measurement and analysis of network I/O applica-
tions in a virtualized single host. The performance was evaluated
with respect to different resource usage patterns (i.e., application/
file size and workload) and different numbers of VMs. For both
small-sized and large-sized file applications, the peak perform-
ance occurred under applied workload of 50–60%. But for a
small-sized file application such as 1 and 10 kB, obvious perform-
ance degradation occurred at workload rates higher than 60%. A
reason given by the authors for this phenomenon is that the per-
formance is bounded by the CPU resources. This is because the
CPU consumed much more time to process network requests and
establishes transmission control protocol (TCP) connections to
deal with the fast arrival of network packets when the workload
rate is high. Experiments also demonstrated that the network per-
formance bottleneck is more severe and more allocation time is
needed to handle an input when a high system workload is exe-
cuted on a Xen VMM platform [69]. Especially, when dealing
with small packets, the throughput is even lower, due to the reason
that the software stack does not have enough CPU resources to
process.
The above experiments and analysis about network perform-
ance under I/O virtualization were performed on VMs instantiated
on a single physical machine. Experimental insights and measure-
ments for understanding the effect of resource sharing on multiple
VMs running on multicore platforms were discussed in Ref. [68].
Results indicated that multiple applications can share multicore
virtualized nodes without undue performance effects, and the
latency for a write/read operation does not change much as the
number of VMs increases. This is because VMs share the commu-
nication resource using an InfiniBand interconnection which helps
in avoiding frontend–backend communication overheads. How-
ever, contrasting with performance demonstrated by VMs on a
single machine, latencies increase exponentially with the package
size due to bandwidth saturation. It is considered that, as the link
becomes saturated with increasing package size, the average
bandwidth attained by each VM decreases. As experienced by sin-
gle root VMs, the amount of CPU overhead has been demon-
strated to be proportional to the amount of I/O processing
performed [72,73]. In Table 4, representative research efforts on
performance evaluation under the effect of virtualization are
summarized.
The network bottleneck discussed above refers to the current
cloud computing technologies, under the assumption that local

Table 4 Selected research and experiments related to computational and network performance evaluation under the effect of
virtualization

Performance evaluation Representative research Description

Computational performance [5,64,65] Evaluates the computing performance by comparing performing high performance usage to local
clusters
[66] Evaluates the performance variance of EC2 with respect to CPU performance and memory speed
Network performance [70] Evaluates the effect of I/O virtualization on storage and network performance over clouds
based on Eucalyptus
[71] Investigates the bottleneck of I/O virtualized network performance and its root cause under high
workload
[68,69] Investigates the degradation network performance with high package transmission rate in a
virtualized single host
[72,73] Evaluates the network performance on VMs running on multicore platforms by comparing with
single host

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 040901-7

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 facilities (e.g., data acquisition network employed on the shop
floor) are connected to the cloud via up-to-date communication
technologies or high-speed Internet. However, it is not uncommon
in practice that high-speed Internet connection is still not available
everywhere and the read/write speed can be severely limited. This
limits the data transfer speed, which is critical to in situ condition
monitoring via the cloud, and affects subsequent data analysis per-
formed in the cloud. A possible solution to this problem is to per-
form the preliminary signal processing at local agents, to extract
features with compact data size, which are then transmitted to the
cloud for further analysis and decision-making. Such a scenario
will alleviate the constraint for collaborative intelligence-based
design in CM. This is because the choice of the design models, as
opposed to the development of the models themselves, does not
involve a large quantity of computation steps and thus can be effi-
ciently performed in the cloud, whereas the transmission of mod-
els to local manufacturing facilities is not time critical, therefore
does not require high-speed network connection.
4.3 Other Challenges. Information on further challenges in
cloud-based computing include information security [74,75] and
data lock-in. Information security, as a major concern in the adop-
tion of cloud services, is one of the most important issues being
critically examined by individuals and/or enterprises who would
like to use cloud computing as a service infrastructure [76]. As the
cloud is an Internet enabled service infrastructure, all the concerns
related to security on the Internet are also encountered by the cloud.
As a result, sensitive information or security data can be accessed
through a hacker attack. This requires more advanced network traf-
fic encryption techniques such as secure socket layer and the trans-
port layer for security [77]. Additionally, the special environment
of cloud-based service increases its vulnerability. Since multite-
nancy is one of the major characteristics of cloud computing, data
from various users may be allocated and stored at the same location
or even same physical machine. This increases the risk of data
being accessed by other users that attacks the loop-hole at a physi-
cal or software level. To mitigate such problem, service providers
should ensure the absolute accessibility by data owners. However,
security is not only a concern for cloud service providers but also
for the service consumers, as the security responsibilities vary with
different service types. Amazon EC2, as a typical representative of
IaaS, includes vendor responsibility for security up to the hypervi-
sor. This means that they can only address security controls such as
physical security, environmental security, and virtualization secu-
rity. The consumer is responsible for the security controls related to
platform, application, and data [78].
In addition to cybersecurity in the cloud computing environ-
ment, leakage of IP and sensitive information are of major con-
cern when using crowdsourcing for collaborative design and
decision-making. Anonymizing sensitive information would help
reduce the concern and encourage the development of crowd-
sourcing for CM. However, there has not been a standard to auto-
matically determine which aspects of data, knowledge, and
experience need to be shared to minimize the negative effect
brought by collaborative information sharing. This also highlights
the need for standards to be applied for data management. In addi-
tion, the development of automated and intelligent data analysis
methodologies can provide more efficient decision support by dis-
covering meaningful data and avoiding sensitive information.
Besides information security, other challenges in cloud comput-
ing have been summarized in Ref. [7], include data lock-in, which
means that consumers cannot easily extract their data and pro-
grams from one site to run on another. This is mainly due to the
fact that the computation platforms and programs, originally
developed for a special physical devices environment, need to be
modified when adapted to other physical devices [7]. Data integ-
rity also arises with the special data storage and computing man-
ner in cloud-based service where multiple databases and multiple
applications are running on a distributed system. Data from one
040901-8 / Vol. 137, AUGUST 2015
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
service user may be stored at distributed physical devices, and
pulled into computation and analysis on different devices. Thus
transactions across multiple data sources need to be handled cor-
rectly in a fail safe manner, in order to maintain data integrity.
5 Conclusions
Cloud computing has increasingly become a compelling paradigm
for managing and delivering services over the Internet in various
industrial and commercial fields. Distributed computing resources
are aggregated and provisioned dynamically per service requests
from consumers, allowing them to be free from up-front investment
and related issues. This development is quickly changing the land-
scape of information technology, turning utility computing into real-
ity, and attracting more individuals and enterprises as participants.
A comprehensive review of cloud computing is provided in this
paper, with the purpose to present an informative summary for
researchers and practitioners in the manufacturing industry who
plan to adopt cloud computing as the computational platform.
Cloud-based service is evaluated from the perspective of resource
provision manner and economy. Models to evaluate utilization
cost and service performance are reviewed. It is concluded that
virtualization, as a key technique to achieving multitenant in
cloud computing, inevitably affects the computational perform-
ance and network communication performance due to the reason
that multiple VMs share the same physical devices. Experiments
conducted under different conditions and situations are reviewed
to give the readers a quantitative impression of the limitations and
bottlenecks of current cloud computing techniques.
References
[1] Buyya, R., Yeo, C. S., and Venugopal, S., 2008, “Market-Oriented Cloud Com-
puting: Vision, Hype, and Reality for Delivering It Services as Computing Util-
ities,” 10th IEEE International Conference on High Performance Computing
and Communications, Dalian, China, pp. 5–13.
[2] Rosenthal, A., Mork, P., Li, M. H., Stanford, J., Koester, D., and Reynolds, P.,
2010, “Cloud Computing: A New Business Paradigm for Biomedical Informa-
tion Sharing,” J. Biomed. Inf., 43(2), pp. 342–353.
[3] Xu, X., 2012, “From Cloud Computing to Cloud Manufacturing,” Rob. Com-
put.-Integr. Manuf., 28(1), pp. 75–86.
[4] De Assunç~ao, M. D., Di Costanzo, A., and Buyya, R., 2009, “Evaluating the
Cost-Benefit of Using Cloud Computing to Extend the Capacity of Clusters,”
18th ACM International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Comput-
ing, Munich, Germany, pp. 141–150.
[5] Iosup, A., Ostermann, S., Yigitbasi, M. N., Prodan, R., Fahringer, T., and
Epema, D. H., 2011, “Performance Analysis of Cloud Computing Services for
Many-Tasks Scientific Computing,” IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst., 22(6),
pp. 931–945.
[6] Garcıa-Valls, M., Cucinotta, T., and Lu, C., 2014, “Challenges in Real-Time
Virtualization and Predictable Cloud Computing,” J. Syst. Architect., 60(9), pp.
726–740.
[7] Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A. D., Katz, R., Konwinski, A.,
Lee, G., Patterson, D., Rabakin, A., Stoica, I., and Zaharia, M., 2010, “A View
of Cloud Computing,” Commun. ACM, 53(4), pp. 50–58.
[8] Yang, Y., Gao, R., Fan, Z., Wang, J., and Wang, L., 2014, “Cloud-Based Prog-
nosis: Perspective and Challenge,” ASME Paper No. MSEC2014-4155.
[9] Wang, L., 2013, “Machine Availability Monitoring and Machining Process
Planning Towards Cloud Manufacturing,” CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol., 6(4),
pp. 263–273.
[10] Wu, D., Greer, M. J., Rosen, D. W., and Schaefer, D., 2013, “Cloud Manufactur-
ing: Strategic Vision and State-of-the-Art,” J. Manuf. Syst., 32(4), pp. 564–579.
[11] Asadi, M., and Goldak, J. A., 2014, “An Integrated Computational Welding
Mechanics With Direct-Search Optimization for Mitigation of Distortion in an Alu-
minum Bar Using Side Heating,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 136(1), p. 011007.
[12] Tutar, M., and Karakus, A., 2013, “Computational Modeling of the Effects of
Viscous Dissipation on Polymer Melt Flow Behavior During Injection Molding
Process in Plane Channels,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(1), p. 011007.
[13] Ren, L., Zhang, L., Wang, L., Tao, F., and Chai, X., 2014, “Cloud Manufacturing:
Key Characteristics and Applications,” Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf., pp. 1–15.
[14] Wang, L., Holm, M., and Adamson, G., 2010, “Embedding a Process Plan in
Function Blocks for Adaptive Machining,” CIRP Ann.–Manuf. Technol., 59(1),
pp. 433–436.
[15] Ganguly, V., Schmitz, T., Graziano, A., and Yamaguchi, H., 2013, “Force Mea-
surement and Analysis for Magnetic Field–Assisted Finishing,” ASME J.
Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(4), p. 041016.
[16] Shu, S., Cheng, K., Ding, H., and Chen, S., 2013, “An Innovative Method to
Measure the Cutting Temperature in Process by Using an Internally Cooled
Smart Cutting Tool,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(6), p. 061018.
Transactions of the ASME
 [17] Rao, P., Bukkapatnam, S., Beyca, O., Kong, Z. J., and Komanduri, R., 2014,
“Real-Time Identification of Incipient Surface Morphology Variations in Ultra-
precision Machining Process,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 136(2), p. 021008.
[18] Ren, L., Zhang, L., Tao, F., Zhao, C., Chai, X., and Zhao, X., 2013, “Cloud
Manufacturing: From Concept to Practice,” Enterp. Inf. Syst., 9(2), pp. 1–24.
[19] Wang, L., Wang, X. V., Gao, L., and Vancza, J., 2014, “A Cloud-Based Approach
for WEEE Remanufacturing,” CIRP Ann.–Manuf. Technol., 63(1), pp. 409–412.
[20] Wang, X., and Xu, X., 2013, “ICMS: A Cloud-Based Manufacturing System,”
Cloud Manufacturing, Springer, London, pp. 1–22.
[21] Wu, D., Rosen, D. W., and Schaefer, D., 2014, “Cloud-Based Design and Man-
ufacturing: Status and Promise,” Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing
(CBDM): A Service-Oriented Product Development Paradigm for the 21st Cen-
tury, D. Schaefer, ed., Springer, London, pp. 1–24.
[22] Wang, X., and Xu, X., 2013, “An Interoperable Solution for Cloud Man-
ufacturing,” Rob. Comput.-Integr. Manuf., 29(4), pp. 232–247.
[23] Wu, D., Thames, J. L., Rosen, D. W., and Schaefer, D., 2013, “Enhancing the
Product Realization Process With Cloud-Based Design and Manufacturing Sys-
tems,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 13(4), pp. 1–12.
[24] Lee, J., Lapira, E., Bagheri, B., and Kao, H., 2013, “Recent Advances and
Trends in Predictive Manufacturing Systems in Big Data Environment,” Manuf.
Lett., 1(1), pp. 38–41.
[25] Zhang, Q., Cheng, L., and Boutaba, R., 2010, “Cloud Computing: State-of-the-
Art and Research Challenges,” J. Internet Serv. Appl., 1(1), pp. 7–18.
[26] Jula, A., Sundararajan, E., and Othman, Z., 2014, “Cloud Computing Service
Composition: A Systematic Literature Review,” Expert Syst. Appl., 41(8), pp.
3809–3824.
[27] Dillon, T., Wu, C., and Chang, E., 2010, “Cloud Computing: Issues and
Challenges,” 24th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information
Networking and Applications (AINA), Apr. 20–23, Perth, Australia, pp. 27–33.
[28] Sakellari, G., and Loukas, G., 2013, “A Survey of Mathematical Models, Simu-
lation Approaches and Testbeds Used for Research in Cloud Computing,”
Simul. Modell. Pract. Theory, 39, pp. 92–103.
[29] Agrawal, D., Das, S., and Abbadi, A. E., 2011, “Big Data and Cloud Comput-
ing: Current State and Future Opportunities,” 14th International Conference on
Extending Database Technology, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 530–533.
[30] Nurmi, D., Wolski, R., Grzegorczyk, C., Obertelli, G., Soman, S., Youseff, L.,
and Zagorodnov, D., 2009, “The Eucalyptus Open-Source Cloud-Computing
System,” 9th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster Computing and
the Grid, Shanghai, China, May 18–20, pp. 124–131.
[31] Manvi, S., and Shyam, G., 2014, “Resource Management for Infrastructure as a
Service (IaaS) in Cloud Computing: A Survey,” J. Network Comput. Appl., 41,
pp. 414–440.
[32] Garg, S. K., Versteeg, S., and Buyya, R., 2013, “A Framework for Ranking of
Cloud Computing Services,” Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 29(4), pp. 1012–1023.
[33] Mell, P., and Grance, T., 2009, “The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing,”
Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Special Publication, 800-145,
[34] Amazon EC2: (http://aws.Amazon.com/ec2/).
[35] Palankar, M. R., Iamnitchi, A., Ripeanu, M., and Garfinkel, S., 2008, “Amazon
S3 for Science Grids: A Viable Solution?,” 2008 International Workshop on
Data-Aware Distributed Computing, Boston, MA, pp. 55–64.
[36] Google Apps Engine: (https://cloud.google.com/appengine/).
[37] Popa, L., Kumar, G., Chowdhury, M., Krishnamurthy, A., Ratnasamy, S., and
Stoica, I., 2012, “FairCloud: Sharing the Network in Cloud Computing,” ACM
SIGCOMM 2012 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures,
and Protocols for Computer Communication, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 187–198.
[38] Greenberg, A., Hamilton, J., Maltz, D. A., and Patel, P., 2008, “The Cost of a
Cloud: Research Problems in Data Center Networks,” ACM SIGCOMM Com-
put. Commun. Rev., 39(1), pp. 68–73.
[39] Kumar, K., and Lu, Y., 2010, “Cloud Computing for Mobile Users: Can Off-
loading Computation Save Energy,” Computer, 43(4), pp. 51–56.
[40] Brender, N., and Markov, I., 2013, “Risk Perception and Risk Management in
Cloud Computing: Results From a Case Study of Swiss Companies,” Int. J. Inf.
Manage., 33(5), pp. 726–733.
[41] Yu, S., Wang, C., Ren, K., and Lou, W., 2010, “Achieving Secure, Scalable,
and Fine-Grained Data Access Control in Cloud Computing,” 2010 IEEE
INFOCOM, San Diego, CA, Mar. 14–19, pp. 1–9.
[42] Mergen, M., Uhlig, V., Krieger, O., and Xenidis, J., 2006, “Virtualization for High-
Performance Computing,” ACM SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., 40(2), pp. 8–11.
[43] Ibrahim, S., He, B., and Jin, H., 2011, “Towards Pay-as-You-Consume Cloud
Computing,” 2011 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing,
Washington, DC, July 4–9, pp. 370–377.
[44] Kondo, D., Javadi, B., Malecot, P., Cappello, F., and Anderson, D. P., 2009,
“Cost-Benefit Analysis of Cloud Computing Versus Desktop Grids,” 2009
IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, Rome,
Italy, May 23–29, pp. 1–12.
[45] Deelman, E., Singh, G., Livny, M., Berriman, B., and Good, J., 2008, “The
Cost of Doing Science on The Cloud: The Montage Example,” 2008 ACM/
IEEE Conference on Supercomputing, Austin, TX, Nov. 15–21, p. 50.
[46] Chaisiri, S., Lee, B. S., and Niyato, D., 2012, “Optimization of Resource Provi-
sioning Cost in Cloud Computing,” IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput., 5(2), pp.
164–177.
[47] Chaisiri, S., Lee, B. S., and Niyato, D., 2009, “Optimal Virtual Machine Place-
ment Across Multiple Cloud Providers,” IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing
Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Dec. 7–11.
[48] Sun, L., Hussain, F. K., Hussain, O. K., and Chang, E., 2014, “Cloud Service
Selection: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Directions,” J. Network Com-
put. Appl., 45, pp. 134–150.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 11/13/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[49] Singh, R., Sharma, U., Cecchet, E., and Shenoy, P., 2010, “Autonomic Mix-
Aware Provisioning for Non-Stationary Data Center Workloads,” 7th Interna-
tional Conference on Autonomic Computing, Washington, DC, pp. 21–30.
[50] Karim, R., Ding, C., and Miri, A., 2013, “An End-to-End QoS Mapping
Approach for Cloud Service Selection,” IEEE 9th World Congress on Services,
Santa Clara, CA, June 28–July3.
[51] Godse, M., and Mulik, S., 2009, “An Approach for Selecting Software-as-a-
Service (SaaS) Product,” IEEE International Conference on Cloud Computing,
Bangalore, India.
[52] Zeng, L., Zhao, Y., and Zeng, J., 2009, “Cloud Serivces and Service Selection
Algorithm Research,” First ACM/SIGEVO Summit on Genetic and Evolution-
ary Computation, Shanghai, China, pp. 1045–1048.
[53] Limam, N., and Boutaba, R., 2010, “Assessing Software Service Quality and
Trustworthiness at Selection Time,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 36(4), pp.
559–574.
[54] Yan, R., Sun, H., and Qian, Y., 2013, “Energy-Aware Sensor Node Design
With Its Application in Wireless Sensor Networks,” IEEE Trans. Instrum.
Meas., 62(5), pp. 1183–1191.
[55] Yan, R., Fan, Z., Gao, R., and Sun, H., 2013, “Energy-Efficient Sensor Data
Gathering in Wireless Sensor Networks,” Sens. Mater., 25(1), pp. 31–44.
[56] Ball, D., Yan, R., Licht, T., Deshmukh, A., and Gao, R., 2008, “A Strategy for
Decomposing Large-Scale Energy Constrained Sensor Networks for System
Monitoring,” Prod. Plann. Control, 19(4), pp. 435–447.
[57] Wells, L. J., Camelio, J. A., Williams, C. B., and White, J., 2014, “Cyber-Physical
Security Challenges in Manufacturing Systems,” Manuf. Lett., 2(2), pp. 74–77.
[58] Larkin, R. D., Lopez, J., Jr., Butts, J. W., and Grimaila, M., 2014, “Evaluation
of Security Solutions in the SCADA Environment,” ACM SIGMIS Database,
45(1), pp. 38–53.
[59] Huang, Q., Yang, C., Liu, K., Xia, J., Xu, C., Li, J., and Li, Z., 2013,
“Evaluating Open-Source Cloud Computing Solutions for Geosciences,” Com-
put. Geosci., 59, pp. 41–52.
[60] Teng, F., and Magoules, F., 2010, “A New Game Theoretical Resource Alloca-
tion Algorithm for Cloud Computing,” Advances in Grid and Pervasive Com-
puting, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 321–330.
[61] Quiroz, A., Kim, H., Parashar, M., Gnanasambandam, N., and Sharma, N.,
2009, “Towards Autonomic Workload Provisioning for Enterprise Grids and
Clouds,” 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Grid Computing, Victo-
ria, Australia, Oct. 13–15, pp. 50–57.
[62] Sotomayor, B., Montero, R. S., Llorente, I. M., and Foster, I., 2009, “An Open
Source Solution for Virtual Infrastructure Management in Private and Hybrid
Clouds,” IEEE international Conference on Internet Computing, Cancouver,
Canada, pp. 78–89.
[63] Buyya, R., and Ranjan, R., 2010, “Federated Resource Management in Grid and
Cloud Computing Systems,” Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 26(8), pp. 1189–1191.
[64] Huber, N., von Quast, M., Hauck, M., and Kounev, S., 2011, “Evaluating and
Modeling Virtualization Performance Overhead for Cloud Environments,”
International Conference on Cloud Computing and Service Science,
Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, pp. 563–573.
[65] Kousiouris, G., Cucinotta, T., and Varvarigou, T., 2011, “The Effects of Sched-
uling, Workload Type and Consolidation Scenarios on Virtual Machine Per-
formance and Their Prediction Through Optimized Artificial Neural
Networks,” J. Syst. Software, 84(8), pp. 1270–1291.
[66] Schad, J., Dittrich, J., and Quiane-Ruiz, J. A., 2010, “Runtime Measurements in
the Cloud: Observing, Analyzing, and Reducing Variance,” Proc. VLDB
Endowment, 3(1–2), pp. 460–471.
[67] Barham, P., Dragovic, B., Fraser, K., Hand, S., Harris, T., Ho, A., Neugebauer,
R., Pratt, I., and Warfield, A., 2003, “Xen and the Art of Virtualization,” ACM
SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., 37(5), pp. 164–177.
[68] Mei, Y., Liu, L., Pu, X., Sivathanu, S., and Dong, X., 2013, “Performance Anal-
ysis of Network I/O Workloads in Virtualized Data Centers,” IEEE Trans. Serv.
Comput., 6(1), pp. 48–63.
[69] Guan, H., Ma, R., and Li, J., 2014, “Workload-Aware Credit Scheduler for
Improving Network I/O Performance in Virtualization Environment,” IEEE
Trans. Cloud Comput., 2(2), pp. 130–142.
[70] Shafer, J., 2010, “I/O Virtualization Bottlenecks in Cloud Computing Today,”
2nd Conference on I/O Virtualization, Berkeley, CA.
[71] Bourguiba, M., Haddadou, K., El Korbi, I., and Pujolle, G., 2014, “Improving
Network I/O Virtualization for Cloud Computing,” IEEE Trans. Parallel Dis-
trib. Syst., 25(3), pp. 673–681.
[72] Ranadive, A., Kesavan, M., Gavrilovska, A., and Schwan, K., 2008,
“Performance Implications of Virtualizing Multicore Cluster Machines,” 2nd
ACM Workshop on System-Level Virtualization for High Performance Com-
puting, Glasgow, Scotland, pp. 1–8.
[73] Cherkasova, L., and Gardner, R., 2005, “Measuring CPU Overhead for I/O
Processing in the Xen Virtual Machine Monitor,” USENIX Annual Technical
Conference, Anaheim, CA.
[74] Subashini, S., and Kavitha, V., 2011, “A Survey on Security Issues in Service Deliv-
ery Models of Cloud Computing,” J. Network Comput. Appl., 34(1), pp. 1–11.
[75] Lori, M., 2009, Data Security in the World of Cloud Computing, Co-published
by IEEE Comput. Reliab. Soc., pp. 61–64.
[76] Brender, N., and Markov, I., 2013, “Risk Perception and Risk Management in
Cloud Computing: Results From a Case Study of Swiss Companies,” Int. J. Inf.
Manage., 33(5), pp. 726–733.
[77] Subashini, S., and Kavitha, V., 2011, “A Survey on Security Issues in Service Deliv-
ery Models of Cloud Computing,” J. Network Comput. Appl., 34(1), pp. 1–11.
[78] Archer, J., and Boehm, A., 2009, “Security Guidance for Critical Areas of
Focus in Cloud Computing,” Cloud Security Alliance, pp. 1–76.
AUGUST 2015, Vol. 137 / 040901-9