2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC)
A Cloudlet-based Mobile Computing Model for
Resource and Energy Efficient Offloading
Shichao Guan Azzedine Boukerche
PARADISE Research Laboratory PARADISE Research Laboratory
EECS - University of Ottawa EECS - University of Ottawa
Email: sguan049@uottawa.ca Email: boukerch@site.uottawa.ca
Abstract—Due to the limitation of the mobile device battery
lifespan, the concept of Mobile Cloud Computing(MCC) offload-
ing is popularly introduced to handle the conflicts between the
resource-hungry mobile tasks and the limited internal energy
capacity. To further reduce the communication delay and energy
cost between the offloader and offloadee, the Cloudlet model
is proposed that performs as the agent of remote Cloud Data-
center. In this case, many offloading tasks used to be executed
by the distant Cloud can be processed locally on the Cloudlet.
However, unlike the remote Cloud that is assumed to provide
”unlimited” computing utility, the Cloudlet is still bounded
regarding computing power, storage, network bandwidth and
coverage. In this paper, a Cloudlet-based offloading model is
proposed to enable energy and execution efficient offloading. A
task-centric resource allocation model is presented to handle the
resource limitation issue of the local Cloudlet. In the experiments,
the proposed model is compared to the traditional device-based
solutions, and the offloading execution results present an overall
improvement of the offloading energy reservation as well as
execution throughput.
Index Terms—Mobile Cloud Computing; Cloudlet; Resource
Scheduling; Performance Evaluation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Inherited from the concept of Ubiquitous Computing, the
current mobile devices that equipped with modern computing
power and sophisticated sensors are distributed in almost
all areas of people’s everyday life. The thin and compact
design of these devices and the utilization of new generation
high coverage robust cellular network nowadays can enable
more complex functions and extensive features than before.
However, the severe conflicts between limited device battery
lifespan and task computing requirements still exist. Consider-
ing the confined physical spaces of mobile elements, carrying
extra energy bank impedes the mobility and usability. The
general concept of Mobile Cloud Computing(MMC) offload-
ing is adapted to handle this energy issue on the soft-layer,
seeking to resolve the energy-aware task processing issue
via outsourcing task requests to available external computing
utility. According to the official Cloud Computing definition
[1], the Cloud resources are promising to process the mobile
tasks owing to its elastic and on-demand service provisioning
feature. In terms of the three-layered service model, the MCC-
based offloading can be achieved by isolating the underlying
resource preparing details on the infrastructure level so that the
978-1-5386-6950-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Downloaded on February 11,2022 at 07:49:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Samaneh Ahmadvand
PARADISE Research Laboratory
EECS - University of Ottawa
Email: samaneh.ahmadvand@carleton.ca
task and user-related functions and scheduling policies can be
implemented respectively on the PaaS and SaaS layers.
Unfortunately, MCC-based offloading is not always prof-
itable regarding mobile device energy reservation. The com-
munication during offloading may introduce nontrivial energy
consumption. To make the matter worse, the WAN level
communication distance and the unstable network environment
also reduce the offloading QoS. Concerning these issues, the
concept of Cloudlet by [2] and [3] is proposed to shorten
the communication distance through the proximate local avail-
able infrastructure. Unlike the Mobile Edge Computing-based
solutions that require system-level pre-investments shown in
[4],[5], [6] and [7], the Cloudlet-based system can bridge the
offloaders and offloadees based on currently existing hardware
that is decentralized on the edge of the local LAN.
Although the Cloudlet-based MCC offloading model
achieves physical adjacence for offloading cost-effectively, it
suffers from limited computing utility and storage capacity,
compared to the remote resources in the Cloud Data Cen-
ter(DC). A local Cloudlet agent may easily exhaust its utility
in the multi-user multi-task real life offloading scenarios. In
this case, additional offloading requests can only be forwarded
to the remote Cloud resources, downgrading the offloading
experiences. In this paper, we proposed a Cloudlet-based
task-centric offloading model that concerns the energy-aware
offloading process in the resource-constrained Cloudlets. A
threshold-based Cloudlet offloading scheme is designed to
maximize the throughput of the local Cloudlets. The system
model is validated with real data, and the Cloudlet execu-
tion performance is evaluated and compared with traditional
device-centric solutions based on task number, task frequency,
and task type.
The organization of the remaining sections is as follows.
In Section 2, the state-of-the-art is discussed in the scope
of the MCC-based offloading technologies, system models
and critical enablers. In Section 3, the proposed Cloudlet-
based task-centric model is introduced, with the presence of
system analysis, energy-aware model formulation and task
execution scheduling details. In Section 4, the proposed model
is experimented and discussed, focusing on the offloading
energy efficiency and execution efficiency. In Section 5, the
paper is finalized by concluding the results, summarizing the
current progress and showing future research directions.
00980
 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC)
II. R ELATED W ORK
As mentioned in the previous section, the work [2] pro-
posed the Cloudlet concept model. In this work, the authors
differentiate the Cloudlet with the traditional Cloud in terms
of resource property and execution workflow. Regarding the
resource limitation issue, a VM overlay sharing scheme is
proposed to reduce the size of the virtual image.
In the works MAUI and CloneCloud [8], [9], the MCC-
based offloading process is formalized and standardized. In
these works, the task partitioning policies are first introduced
to distinguish remote processing tasks and local executing
tasks with the help of cross-platform compilers. A client-server
based energy-aware standard model is then proposed, based on
which the device-based profiling and network-based profiling
are processed. In the end, the profiled data generates a Directed
Acyclic Graph(DAG) according to the task execution logic
and dependency, on which the shortest path containing lowest
energy consumption cost can be selected as real execution
solution.
The work Cuckoo [10] focuses the offloading usability
and programming efficiency. From the perspective of mobile
application developers, the authors try to tap into the Android
activity/service model, based on which an offloading interface
is designed and implemented. In this case, the local and remote
process can be directly integrated into build and runtime.
Concerning the distribution of the applications on the network,
the Kandoo [11] project proposes a two-layered controller on
the OpenFlow [12], which automatically handles the control
details for mobile application developers.
The work Thinkair [13] concerns the offloading execution
efficiency and explores the parallel processing of offloading
tasks. Unlike the client-server based offloading schemes, the
isolates the task processing logic with offloading resource
scheduling based on the remote Cloud resources. The de-
coupling of the application management and resource control
enables more flexibility to task load changes that lead to
higher execution efficiency. Similarly, in work COSMOS [14],
a computing offloading model is designed and implemented on
the Amazon EC2 instances [15]. The proposed risk control
scheduling can efficiently reduce the number of additional
alive instances.
In [16], the offloading process is abstracted as semi-Markov
decision process. At the decision epoch, a long-term reward
function is defined to calculate the minimal task dropping pos-
sibility according to the processing state transition probability.
By reducing the number of task request rejections, energy can
be reserved more efficiently from both mobile elements and
remote Cloud resources.
The work [17] utilizes an offloadee-based cooperative game
theory model to minimize the number of Cloud VM instances
with the constraints of task execution deadline. Based on the
proposed pooling strategy, Cloud resources can be scheduled
and shared to the convergence of Nash equilibrium. Besides,
in the works [18] and [19], an offloader-based game model is
978-1-5386-6950-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Downloaded on February 11,2022 at 07:49:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
introduced, focusing on the maximizing mobile device energy
reservation benefits.
In the work MuSIC [20], a two-layered offloading scheme
is proposed. Concerning the mobility of mobile devices and
the QoS of task execution, the work suggests a simulated
annealing resource scheduling algorithm to map local and
remote Cloud resources. However, the resource limitation issue
on the Cloudlet is out of the scope of this paper.
Concerning the mobility and local coverage issue, the work
in [21] proposed a Genetic Algorithm(GA) that evaluates the
offloading fault-tolerance overhead and mobility pattern on the
mobile elements to improve overall energy reservation.
The work AMUSE [22] focuses the network channel switch-
ing issues during the offloading process. The authors propose
a financial cost and delay-aware prediction-based offloading
scheme to increase user utility. By adopting TCP-based data
information, the proposed protocol can predict and dynami-
cally change the scheduling policy according to the interests.
The mCloud [23] proposed a 3-tie offloading model that
involves local Ad-Hoc Cloud, Cloudlet, and remote Cloud. A
TOPSIS-based collaborative execution algorithm is designed
for mapping the best offloading resource in terms of the
computing power, energy cost, and QoS. However, the selected
parameters and thresholds are objectively defined with static
values, which may not fully support large-scale mobile tasks.
The work [24] concerns the time-constraint of the mobile
tasks explicitly and presents a two-step DAG-based task ex-
ecuting scheme that the processing values and energy weight
can dynamically change. The static evaluator calculates the
average execution time of the task according to the real
execution environment while the average cost further guilds
the dynamic resource mapping if the execution environment
changes.
The work [25] proposed a memory allocation optimization
algorithm to reduce the data access latency and energy cost
during task-level offloading. By utilizing dynamic program-
ming methods, the allocation process can be recursively cut
to the size of hybrid memory blocks.
Regarding offloading data access efficiency, the work
QuickSync [26] seeks to improve synchronization efficiency
via profiling network status, reducing unnecessary redundancy
and batching the light load chunks.
As demonstrated in the above works, the system-level
macroscopic studies and the microscopic task offloading-
oriented researches did not completely solve the Cloudlet-
based resource management issue in the energy-efficient large-
scale offloading scenarios. In this paper, we proposed a
Cloudlet-based task-level offloading scheduling scheme to
tackle with the resource limitation issue on the Cloudlets in
the scope of energy-aware MCC offloading.
III. E NERGY- AWARE C LOUDLET- BASED O FFLOADING
P ROCESSING M ODEL
In this section, the proposed Cloudlet-based offloading
system is first introduced with the system architecture and the
00981
 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC)

Cloud

Cloud
Internet
No

Cloud
Cloudlet
Remote
Local Region DC Yes

Fig. 1. Cloudlet-based Offloading Scheduling System

features and functions. Then, the task-level energy-aware of-

floading workflow is presented. In the end, the Cloudlet-based
throughput optimization scheduling algorithm is demonstrated. No

A. System Architecture
The proposed MCC offloading system involves mainly four Yes
components as shown in the Figure 1.
• Local Mobile Offloader: the local area mobile elements
perform as the core offloading requesters. The man-
agement of these devices involves resource discovery,
message routing, mobility-based localization and fault
tolerance.
• Intermediate Cloudlet: the Cloudlet consists of the crucial
functions of the MCC offloading system. On the one
hand, it processes local offloading requests based on the
Fig. 2. Task-based Offloading Processing
local interest. On the other hand, it connects to the remote
Cloud components for offloading request forwarding and
feedback redirection. C. Cloudlet Offloading Resource Scheduling Algorithm
• Remote Cloud Components: the remote Cloud resources
The Cloudlet-based offloading task scheduling scheme is
mainly focus on the processing of forwarded offloading
shown in the Algorithm 1. In the main while loop from line
requests. These components collaborate with each local
2 to line 15, the Cloudlet waits for the income task list.
Cloudlet to support external computing utility and extra
When one offloading request is received, the Cloudlet loops the
storage when the local offloading load density increase.
currently available VM overlays. If one available resource is
• Network Connections: the network settings primarily
found, the Cloudlet further checks the specific VM processing
three components – the local wireless-based connection
time queue and the task time constraints, as shown between
between mobile elements and the intermediate Cloudlet,
the line 3 and the line 7. If the estimated task processing time
the direct Cellular network between mobile devices and
suits the VM processing capability, the task will be dispatched
the remote Cloud, and the wired WAN level wired
to that VM. Otherwise, if all VMs are busy, the task will be
network between the Cloudlet and the Cloud DC.
sent to the discard queue of the first found VM. If the task
VM overlay is not found in all VMs, the Cloudlet delegate the
B. Energy-aware Processing Workflow
task to the VM discard queue based on the VM task processing
The Cloudlet-based energy-aware offloading processing rate.
flow is shown in the Figure 2. In the beginning, when the
offloading tasks are triggered by the local mobile devices, IV. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION AND D ISCUSS
the networks are generated between the offloader and the To validate the proposed offloading energy model and ob-
offloadee. If the connections cannot be adequately established, serve the performance of the offloading scheduling algorithm,
the offloading tasks are redirected back to the mobile devices we tested our system on the real executions physically and on
for single processing. Otherwise, the Cloudlet takes control of the CloudSim simulator virtually on the large-scale execution
offloading task management. It first profiles the local execution scenarios. The experiment sets are shown in the Table I. The
environment then processing the offloading requests or forward Cloudlet class and Mobile Device Class are utilized to per-
them to the remote Cloud depends on the number of resources. form offloading execution efficiency evaluation and offloading

978-1-5386-6950-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 00982

Authorized licensed use limited to: Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Downloaded on February 11,2022 at 07:49:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC)

Algorithm 1: Cloudlet-based Offloading Throughput Op- TABLE I

timization Algorithm E XPERIMENT PARAMETER S ET

1 Require: Cloudlet, taskList, appList Class Type Val

2 while taskQue! = empty do
3 procT ← appList.get(taskList) Cloudlet Size Local Laptop
4 for vminCloudlet do CPU Intel 4700MQ
5 if vm.cache(procT ) then RAM 16 GB
6 Dispatch(procT, vm) WLAN 802.11n
7 if vm.curT ime < procT.time then
Mobile Device Brand Moto G4
8 vm.proc(procT, curT ime)
CPU Quad-core Cortex-A53
9 else RAM 2 GB
10 continue;
WLAN 802.11n
11 if Cloudlet.f ound(procT ) then Cellular LTE Cat4 150/50 Mbit/s
12 Dispatch(proT, disgardQue) CloudSim Host Brand Hp G4
Hp G5
13 else
14 f oundDisgardQue(procT ) MIPS 1860, 2660
15 cacheQue.update() PES 2
RAM 4 GB
16 Return:ExecM ap(vm, taskList)
Bandwidth 1 Gbit/s
CloudSim VM Type Micro, Small
MIPS 500, 1000
energy efficiency evaluation from the perspective of mobile PES 1
devices, with the validation task sets. The CloudSim-related RAM 0.63 GB, 1.7 GB
[27] setting are applied in the observation and evaluation Bandwidth 100 Mbit/s
regarding Cloudlet-based offloading processing. Processing Task Size 6
The first experiment concerns the offloading QoS based on Name AbiWord, GIMP, Gnumeric,
the mobile users. To evaluate the performance, we test the Kpresenter, PathFind, SnapFind
Validation Task Size 10
offloading task execution time and energy cost on the non-
Name BinarySearch
offloading mobile only scenario and on the proposed Cloudlet-
based offloading processing scenario with the same mobile
device and task sets. The test mobile device is a smartphone
with quad-core and 802.11n WiFi while the task sets are from
35000 Proposed
the Java-based cross-platform BinarySearch application [28]. Mobile Only
In the task processing scenario, a series of atom tasks with 30000
different computing load and communication load are executed
Execution Time(ms)

based on the linear task dependency from light load tasks to 25000

heavy load ones.

20000
The experiment results are presented in the Figure 3 and
Figure 4 with the evaluation of execution time and energy 15000
consumption respectively. As shown in the Figure 3, the
10000
non-offloading processing, and the proposed Cloudlet-based
processing achieves similar executing results for the light load 5000
atom tasks in the beginning. However, as with the number
and load of the tasks increase, the proposed scheme clearly 0

outperforms the counterpart due to the utilization of high- 0 5 10 15 20 25

performance Cloudlets under the local network.
A similar behavior can also be observed in the energy cost
experiment 4. The energy efficiency of the proposed scheme
is not obviously differentiated from the non-offloading mobile
only processing in the beginning due to the low task load. In
the high load processing cases, the proposed scheme presents
a much better energy efficiency because of the reduction of
resource-hungry assignments.
In the cases of Cloudlet-based evaluations, the proposed
task-centric offloading scheme is compared to the traditional
device-based solutions to evaluate the processing efficiency in
Number of Tasks
Fig. 3. Task Offloading Execution Efficiency Evaluation
the high load environments. The Cloudlet processing perfor-
mance is evaluated in terms of the number of the tasks, the
density of the tasks and the similarity of the tasks respectively.
The task processing setting and preparation setting are set
based on the records of the work [2].
The third experiment is to evaluate compare the offloading

978-1-5386-6950-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 00983

Authorized licensed use limited to: Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Downloaded on February 11,2022 at 07:49:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC)

Proposed Proposed
17500
Mobile Only 300 Device-based

15000
Energy Cost(mJ)

12500 250

Missed Tasks
10000

7500 200

5000
150
2500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Number of Tasks Task Interval

Fig. 4. Task Offloading Energy Efficiency Evaluation Fig. 6. Cloudlet Offloading – Different Task Density Evaluation

50
Proposed
sample task processing time under the average similarity ratio.
45 Device-based The total number of tasks processed is set to 400 to eliminate
the influence that is introduced by the task quantity during the
40 offloading processing.
Missed Tasks

35

30 Proposed
275
Device-based
25
250
20
225
Missed Tasks

15
200
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
175
Number Of Tasks
150
Fig. 5. Cloudlet Offloading – Different Number of Tasks Evaluation
125

performance under the number of tasks. To avoid the influence
of task density and the task similarity, the task arriving rate is
manually set to be larger than the task processing time of the
most time-consuming sample task set while the task similarity
ratio is set to be as average.
The results of the quantity-based offloading processing are
shown in the Figure 5. As it presents, the proposed scheme
can achieve a much higher and stable task processing rate,
compared to the counterpart(54.38% vs 39.36 at 80 tasks).
From 20 tasks to 40 tasks, the traditional solution requires a
larger task set to find the local hotspot tasks than the proposed
one due to its larger device level resource preparation delay.
After 40 tasks, these two solutions behave a similar task
missing rate when the local hotspot tasks are targeted and
cached.
The fourth experiment scenario is implemented to evaluate
the offloading performance based on task density. The density
values are set as 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0 and 1.5 times of the
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Similarity Score
Fig. 7. Cloudlet Offloading – Different Task Similarity Evaluation
The task density experiment results are depicted in Figure
6. The device-based solution and the proposed solution both
perform a higher task process rate when the task request in-
terval increases. In addition, the proposed scheme can achieve
an overall better processing performance than the counterpart,
due to the reduction of resource preparation delay.
The last experiment concerns the impact of the task sim-
ilarity in the local area. In the execution scenario, the task
similarity is evaluated under non-similarity, small, medium,
high, very high respectively, under 400 tasks observation.
The results of the task-type based experiment are pictured
in the Figure 7. Similar to the previous experiment, both
of the offloading schemes achieve a positive task processing

978-1-5386-6950-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 00984

Authorized licensed use limited to: Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Downloaded on February 11,2022 at 07:49:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC)
relationship with the task similarity ratio due to the reduction
of overlay context switch overhead. The proposed scheme
demonstrates a better processing rate due to the finer grain
task-level load prediction.
As shown in the above evaluations, on one hand, the
proposed task-centric offloading scheme can effectively reduce
the energy cost of the mobile devices as with the offload-
ing task processing time, compared to the device-only task
processing scenario in the scope of mobile elements. On the
other hand, the resource-constraint Cloudlet-based framework
can productively increase the offloading task processing ratio,
especially under high load execution scenarios.
V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
In this paper, we proposed a Cloudlet-based offloading
processing scheme, specifically concerning the resource issue
on the Cloudlet. The Cloudlet system is first presented with the
system design and process workflow analysis. The Cloudlet-
based resource scheduling algorithm is proposed to optimize
the Cloudlet processing throughput. In the experiments, the
offloading efficiency is first evaluated from the perspective
of mobile elements in the scope of task execution efficiency
and device energy cost. In addition, the Cloudlet offloading
performance is further observed and tested in terms of the
scale, the density and the diversity of the tasks.
On the next step, the collaborative execution issues between
the Cloudlet and remote Cloud will be further concerned. The
performance of the integrated system will be further tested and
evaluated on the public Cloud resources.
R EFERENCES
[1] P. Mell and T. Grance, “The nist definition of cloud computing,” 2011.
[2] M. Satyanarayanan, P. Bahl, R. Caceres, and N. Davies, “The case for
vm-based cloudlets in mobile computing,” Pervasive Computing, IEEE,
vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 14–23, 2009.
[3] T. Verbelen, P. Simoens, F. De Turck, and B. Dhoedt, “Cloudlets:
Bringing the cloud to the mobile user,” in Proceedings of the third ACM
workshop on Mobile cloud computing and services. ACM, 2012, pp.
29–36.
[4] M. Patel, B. Naughton, C. Chan, N. Sprecher, S. Abeta, A. Neal et al.,
“Mobile-edge computing introductory technical white paper,” White
Paper, Mobile-edge Computing (MEC) industry initiative, 2014.
[5] Y. C. Hu, M. Patel, D. Sabella, N. Sprecher, and V. Young, “Mobile
edge computinga key technology towards 5g,” ETSI white paper, vol. 11,
no. 11, pp. 1–16, 2015.
[6] X. Chen, L. Jiao, W. Li, and X. Fu, “Efficient multi-user computation
offloading for mobile-edge cloud computing,” IEEE/ACM Transactions
on Networking, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 2795–2808, 2016.
[7] C. You, K. Huang, H. Chae, and B.-H. Kim, “Energy-efficient resource
allocation for mobile-edge computation offloading,” IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1397–1411, 2017.
[8] E. Cuervo, A. Balasubramanian, D.-k. Cho, A. Wolman, S. Saroiu,
R. Chandra, and P. Bahl, “Maui: making smartphones last longer with
code offload,” in Proc. of the 8th international conference on Mobile
systems, applications, and services, 2010, pp. 49–62.
[9] B.-G. Chun, S. Ihm, P. Maniatis, M. Naik, and A. Patti, “Clonecloud:
elastic execution between mobile device and cloud,” in Proc. of the sixth
conference on Computer systems, 2011, pp. 301–314.
[10] R. Kemp, N. Palmer, T. Kielmann, and H. Bal, “Cuckoo: a computation
offloading framework for smartphones,” in International Conference on
Mobile Computing, Applications, and Services. Springer, 2010, pp.
59–79.
978-1-5386-6950-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Downloaded on February 11,2022 at 07:49:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[11] S. Hassas Yeganeh and Y. Ganjali, “Kandoo: a framework for efficient
and scalable offloading of control applications,” in Proceedings of the
first workshop on Hot topics in software defined networks. ACM, 2012,
pp. 19–24.
[12] N. McKeown, T. Anderson, H. Balakrishnan, G. Parulkar, L. Peterson,
J. Rexford, S. Shenker, and J. Turner, “Openflow: enabling innovation in
campus networks,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review,
vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 69–74, 2008.
[13] S. Kosta, A. Aucinas, P. Hui, R. Mortier, and X. Zhang, “Thinkair:
Dynamic resource allocation and parallel execution in the cloud for
mobile code offloading,” in Infocom, 2012 Proceedings IEEE. IEEE,
2012, pp. 945–953.
[14] C. Shi, K. Habak, P. Pandurangan, M. Ammar, M. Naik, and E. Zegura,
“Cosmos: computation offloading as a service for mobile devices,” in
Proceedings of the 15th ACM international symposium on Mobile ad
hoc networking and computing. ACM, 2014, pp. 287–296.
[15] G. Wang and T. E. Ng, “The impact of virtualization on network
performance of amazon ec2 data center,” in Infocom, 2010 proceedings
ieee. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–9.
[16] H. Liang, L. X. Cai, D. Huang, X. Shen, and D. Peng, “An smdp-
based service model for interdomain resource allocation in mobile cloud
networks,” IEEE transactions on vehicular technology, vol. 61, no. 5,
pp. 2222–2232, 2012.
[17] R. Kaewpuang, D. Niyato, P. Wang, and E. Hossain, “A framework for
cooperative resource management in mobile cloud computing,” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2685–
2700, 2013.
[18] X. Chen, “Decentralized computation offloading game for mobile cloud
computing,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 974–983, 2015.
[19] E. Meskar, T. D. Todd, D. Zhao, and G. Karakostas, “Energy aware
offloading for competing users on a shared communication channel,”
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 87–96,
2017.
[20] M. R. Rahimi, N. Venkatasubramanian, and A. V. Vasilakos, “Music:
Mobility-aware optimal service allocation in mobile cloud computing.”
IEEE CLOUD, vol. 2013, pp. 75–82, 2013.
[21] S. Deng, L. Huang, J. Taheri, and A. Y. Zomaya, “Computation
offloading for service workflow in mobile cloud computing,” IEEE
Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 26, no. 12, pp.
3317–3329, 2015.
[22] Y. Im, C. Joe-Wong, S. Ha, S. Sen, M. Chiang et al., “Amuse: Empow-
ering users for cost-aware offloading with throughput-delay tradeoffs,”
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1062–1076,
2016.
[23] B. Zhou, A. V. Dastjerdi, R. Calheiros, S. Srirama, and R. Buyya,
“mcloud: A context-aware offloading framework for heterogeneous
mobile cloud,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 2015.
[24] Y. Li, M. Chen, W. Dai, and M. Qiu, “Energy optimization with dy-
namic task scheduling mobile cloud computing,” IEEE Systems Journal,
vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 96–105, 2017.
[25] M. Qiu, Z. Chen, Z. Ming, X. Qin, and J. Niu, “Energy-aware data
allocation with hybrid memory for mobile cloud systems,” IEEE Systems
Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 813–822, 2017.
[26] Y. Cui, Z. Lai, X. Wang, and N. Dai, “Quicksync: Improving synchro-
nization efficiency for mobile cloud storage services,” IEEE Transactions
on Mobile Computing, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 3513–3526, 2017.
[27] R. N. Calheiros, R. Ranjan, A. Beloglazov, C. A. De Rose, and R. Buyya,
“Cloudsim: a toolkit for modeling and simulation of cloud computing
environments and evaluation of resource provisioning algorithms,” Soft-
ware: Practice and Experience, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 23–50, 2011.
[28] I. Gouy. (2018) The computer language benchmarks game. [Online].
Available: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/
00985