Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Antonios Makris
 -- 1581 2022-09-27 08:04:27 |
2 Format correction
Sirius Huang
 Meta information modification 1581 2022-09-28 03:34:46 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Makris, A.;  Kontopoulos, I.;  Psomakelis, E.;  Xyalis, S.N.;  Theodoropoulos, T.;  Tserpes, K. Storage Systems in Edge Computing Infrastructures. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27628 (accessed on 05 July 2024).
Makris A,  Kontopoulos I,  Psomakelis E,  Xyalis SN,  Theodoropoulos T,  Tserpes K. Storage Systems in Edge Computing Infrastructures. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27628. Accessed July 05, 2024.
Makris, Antonios, Ioannis Kontopoulos, Evangelos Psomakelis, Stylianos Nektarios Xyalis, Theodoros Theodoropoulos, Konstantinos Tserpes. "Storage Systems in Edge Computing Infrastructures" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27628 (accessed July 05, 2024).
Makris, A.,  Kontopoulos, I.,  Psomakelis, E.,  Xyalis, S.N.,  Theodoropoulos, T., & Tserpes, K. (2022, September 27). Storage Systems in Edge Computing Infrastructures. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27628
Makris, Antonios, et al. "Storage Systems in Edge Computing Infrastructures." Encyclopedia. Web. 27 September, 2022.
Storage Systems in Edge Computing Infrastructures
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/app12178923

Edge computing constitutes a promising paradigm of managing and processing the massive amounts of data generated by Internet of Things (IoT) devices. Data and computation are moved closer to the client, thus enabling latency- and bandwidth-sensitive applications. However, the distributed and heterogeneous nature of the edge as well as its limited resource capabilities pose several challenges in implementing or choosing an efficient edge-enabled storage system. Therefore, it is imperative for the research community to contribute to the clarification of the purposes and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of various edge-enabled storage systems.

blockchain object storage file storage databases edge computing secure storage

1. Introduction

The amount of data generated by Internet of Things (IoT) devices is expected to grow dramatically in the future. According to Cisco [1], there will be almost 30 billion devices connected to the network by the end of 2023. Therefore, existing infrastructures will not be able to support, manage, and process such massive amounts of data. In fact, the current cloud infrastructure alone cannot support a large number of the current IoT applications as end devices are usually distant from the cloud servers, thus adding processing and network overhead, resulting in high latency, low bandwidth, and overall performance degradation.
A conceptual approach which combines the benefits of the cloud and the decentralized processing of services on edge devices is known as edge computing. Edge computing is a promising paradigm able to avoid network bottlenecks, overcome communication overheads, and reduce the data transfer delay [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], as the computational load is moved to the edge of the network, thus leveraging the computational capabilities of the edge nodes. Resource-rich computational resources are placed closer to mobile or IoT devices [10] and therefore edge computing offers higher scalability and availability than traditional cloud platforms [11][12]. Over the years, several edge architectures have been proposed to improve throughput, latency, and network coverage [13][14]. In order to realize the cloud/edge integration, various technologies from different domains should be combined, including computing, network, and application-oriented fragments [15].
One of the main challenges in the development of applications at the edge is the efficient data sharing between the edge nodes, and it can be accomplished within individual application frameworks or through an external storage service. Despite significant improvements in offering an efficient edge storage solution, there are still some issues to be addressed related to the functional and non-functional requirements of cloud/edge-based applications, including low data retrieval latency, high availability and integrity, dealing with a potential shortage of storage resources at an edge node, supporting rapid application component deployment or automatic restart/replacement of unresponsive components, and dealing with the high heterogeneity presented in edge environments. These requirements can be achieved by optimizing resource usage, allocation, and data management plans on edge devices. Hence, the edge storage needs to provide a reliable, fast, stable, and secure shared storage engine, and because it is designed for edge devices with limited resource capabilities, it needs to be extremely lightweight.

2. Storage Systems in Edge Computing Infrastructures

The Internet of Things and WEB 4.0 are quickly becoming more dominant in more and more domains and daily life or industrial applications. This gives rise to a series of new challenges and problems that researchers are actively trying to tackle, both in the cloud [16] and in the edge [17][18]. One of the major problems that falls in this category is the minimization of data latency and network overload in fog or edge networks [19]. One of the most common solutions for this problem is the development of edge storage methodologies in order to move all or part of the necessary data and their processing to the edge, near the edge devices that use them. Edge storage services are actively focusing on decentralization and resource efficiency due to the nature of the edge networks and the devices that are taking part in them. These two main goals are driving the current research in the field. A plethora of traditional technologies in storage are being adapted in order to fit these two requirements, such as the blockchain and block storage technologies.
Blockchain [20] is the well-known technology that came into existence in order to support Bitcoin, but since then, blockchain has developed a “life” of its own, being used in a great deal of other use cases and domains. Blockchain works by creating a central repository of transactions in the form of chained exchanges. Each of these exchanges must be validated by a number of peers in order to be registered in this central repository and be considered a valid transaction. When being applied in edge storage, blockchain has two major flaws: it needs heavy computational power to perform the transaction validations and it requires a centralized database in order to store the chain of transactions [21]. These two characteristics are causing direct conflict with the decentralization and low resource demand requirements of edge storage services. That is the reason that many researchers are trying to combine it with other technologies, such as peer-to-peer networks, limiting or even completely countering these flaws.
Peer-to-peer (P2P) networks are a form of file storage and file sharing technology that is fully decentralized. These types of networks are using a set of protocols that ensure the safe and secure communication between the interconnected devices, called “peers” [22]. These protocols are usually lightweight, adding only minimal overheads to the actual data that peers are exchanging between themselves [23]. Modern peer-to-peer networks are using distributed hash tables (DHT) in order to enhance their functionality and security, some of them even integrating encryption algorithms in order to protect their data from a wider set of possible attacks [24]. The problem with these networks is in the integrity, immutability, and reliability because they provide no adequate security controls over these factors [25]. This limitation is forcing researchers to combine them with other, more secure technologies, such as blockchain, which provide the missing controls.
The literature is actively trying to find a balance between the available frameworks by comparing their throughput, resource efficiency, and limitations, either on their own or when combined with each other. Blockchain and P2P networks are widely used for this purpose because peer-to-peer networks seem the ideal candidate for edge storage solutions, if the drawbacks already mentioned can be tackled. In relevant experiments, the interaction between these two frameworks seems to provide an efficient solution to the edge storage problem because blockchain can cover almost all of the weaknesses that P2P networks possess without adding much overhead, both in read/write operations, the throughput, and the network traffic [21][26][27][28]. The only drawback is that blockchain mechanisms require more redundancy than P2P, which requires more available disk space in the edge clusters that host these solutions, placing limitations on the network architecture options for IoT and fog networks.
Depending on the priorities of the researchers, two of the most important fields of interest in the relevant literature regarding edge storage architectures are security and resource efficiency [29]. In most of the cases, these two priorities are in direct conflict, because in order to improve the resource efficiency, some security rules need to be relaxed, and in order to improve the security, more resources need to be committed. For example, in systems that are based on blockchain and cryptographic security controllers, a great deal of middleware and network orchestrators are needed, allowing the framework to perform the necessary encryptions, decryptions, and security checks on each data transaction [30][31]. Some of the work performed in secure edge storage architectures prioritizes a different set of data security goals, such as availability and integrity. These approaches require a high redundancy which, again, is creating resource-demanding platforms [32][33][34]. Both erasure coding and data replication, which are the most common methodologies for ensuring availability and integrity, require additional nodes that are tasked with holding the replicated data and coordinating the data reading and recovery efforts. On the other hand, the systems that focus on high resource efficiency are usually bypassing data security altogether, focusing only on the data transfer and storage between the nodes, not taking into account the resources needed to secure the data packets transferred through the internet or the communication links between the nodes of the edge network [35][36][37]. These networks are often designed and evaluated with the assumption that data and network security are handled in another level of the data transfer and storage that is just out of their scope. Despite the fact that security is a major issue in every IoT system, cyber-risk regulations and assessment are still in their infancy. For that reason, the authors in [38] presented an analysis of cyber-risk assessment approaches in complex IoT systems and developed an epistemological analysis that enables the assessment of uncontrollable risk states in such systems.
The performance of IoT active devices can be improved by sharing their communication and computation resources. However, most works in the literature focus on either communication cooperation or computation cooperation. In [39], the authors proposed an energy-efficient resource allocation scheme in a wireless-powered MEC system, by leveraging a joint communication/computation cooperation among users. This joint strategy has been proven to reduce overall energy consumption compared to other state-of-the-art works. As far as QoS is concerned, it is difficult for users to select the services with the highest quality. Over the years, many studies have been conducted for QoS prediction in edge computing environments. In [40], the authors proposed a QoS prediction approach by employing and extending the ARIMA model. Finally, in [41], Vehicular Edge Computing (VEC) is presented as a mechanism for improving the QoS, where a volunteer-assisted model is utilized for computation offloading.

References

  1. Cisco, U. Cisco Annual Internet Report (2018–2023) White Paper; Cisco: San Jose, CA, USA, 2020.
  2. Chiang, M.; Zhang, T. Fog and IoT: An overview of research opportunities. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 854–864.
  3. Hao, Z.; Novak, E.; Yi, S.; Li, Q. Challenges and software architecture for fog computing. IEEE Internet Comput. 2017, 21, 44–53.
  4. Hu, Y.C.; Patel, M.; Sabella, D.; Sprecher, N.; Young, V. Mobile edge computing—A key technology towards 5G. ETSI White Pap. 2015, 11, 1–16.
  5. Patel, M.; Naughton, B.; Chan, C.; Sprecher, N.; Abeta, S.; Neal, A. Mobile-edge computing introductory technical white paper. White Pap.-Mob.-Edge Comput. (Mec) Ind. Initiat. 2014, 29, 854–864.
  6. Satyanarayanan, M. The emergence of edge computing. Computer 2017, 50, 30–39.
  7. Shi, W.; Cao, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Y.; Xu, L. Edge computing: Vision and challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 637–646.
  8. Korontanis, I.; Tserpes, K.; Pateraki, M.; Blasi, L.; Violos, J.; Diego, F.; Marin, E.; Kourtellis, N.; Coppola, M.; Carlini, E.; et al. Inter-operability and Orchestration in Heterogeneous Cloud/Edge Resources: The ACCORDION Vision. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Flexible Resource and Application Management on the Edge, Virtual Event, 25 June 2020; pp. 9–14.
  9. Theodoropoulos, T.; Makris, A.; Violos, J.; Tserpes, K. An Automated Pipeline for Advanced Fault Tolerance in Edge Computing Infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Flexible Resource and Application Management on the Edge, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1 July 2022; pp. 19–24.
  10. Ferrucci, L.; Mordacchini, M.; Coppola, M.; Carlini, E.; Kavalionak, H.; Dazzi, P. Latency preserving self-optimizing placement at the edge. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Flexible Resource and Application Management on the Edge, Virtual Event, 25 June 2020; pp. 3–8.
  11. Makris, A.; Boudi, A.; Coppola, M.; Cordeiro, L.; Corsini, M.; Dazzi, P.; Andilla, F.D.; Rozas, Y.G.; Kamarianakis, M.; Pateraki, M.; et al. Cloud for Holography and Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 10th International Conference on Cloud Networking (CloudNet), Cookeville, TN, USA, 8–10 November 2021; pp. 118–126.
  12. Theodoropoulos, T.; Makris, A.; Boudi, A.; Taleb, T.; Herzog, U.; Rosa, L.; Cordeiro, L.; Tserpes, K.; Spatafora, E.; Romussi, A.; et al. Cloud-based XR Services: A Survey on Relevant Challenges and Enabling Technologies. J. Netw. Netw. Appl. 2022, 2, 1–22.
  13. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Cosmas, J.; Jawad, N.; Ali, K.; Meunier, B.; Kapovits, A.; Huang, L.K.; Li, W.; Shi, L.; et al. Internet of radio and light: 5G building network radio and edge architecture. Intell. Converg. Netw. 2020, 1, 37–57.
  14. Sittón-Candanedo, I.; Alonso, R.S.; Corchado, J.M.; Rodríguez-González, S.; Casado-Vara, R. A review of edge computing reference architectures and a new global edge proposal. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 99, 278–294.
  15. Makris, A.; Tserpes, K.; Varvarigou, T. Transition from monolithic to microservice-based applications. Challenges from the developer perspective. Open Res. Eur. 2022, 2, 24.
  16. Sandhu, A.K. Big data with cloud computing: Discussions and challenges. Big Data Min. Anal. 2022, 5, 32–40.
  17. Psomakelis, E.; Aisopos, F.; Litke, A.; Tserpes, K.; Kardara, M.; Campo, P.M. Big IoT and Social Networking Data for Smart Cities. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science, Rome, Italy, 23–25 April 2016; Volume 1 and 2, pp. 396–405.
  18. Rausch, T.; Rashed, A.; Dustdar, S. Optimized container scheduling for data-intensive serverless edge computing. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2021, 114, 259–271.
  19. Makris, A.; Psomakelis, E.; Theodoropoulos, T.; Tserpes, K. Towards a Distributed Storage Framework for Edge Computing Infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Flexible Resource and Application Management on the Edge, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1 July 2022; pp. 9–14.
  20. Nofer, M.; Gomber, P.; Hinz, O.; Schiereck, D. Blockchain. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 183–187.
  21. Kumar, S.; Bharti, A.K.; Amin, R. Decentralized secure storage of medical records using Blockchain and IPFS: A comparative analysis with future directions. Secur. Priv. 2021, 4, e162.
  22. Hou, W.; Jiang, Y.; Lei, W.; Xu, A.; Wen, H.; Chen, S. A P2P network based edge computing smart grid model for efficient resources coordination. Peer-Peer Netw. Appl. 2020, 13, 1026–1037.
  23. Tracey, D.; Sreenan, C. How to see through the Fog? Using Peer to Peer (P2P) for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 5th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Limerick, Ireland, 15–18 April 2019; pp. 47–52.
  24. Daniel, E.; Tschorsch, F. IPFS and friends: A qualitative comparison of next generation peer-to-peer data networks. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2022, 24, 31–52.
  25. Subathra, G.; Antonidoss, A.; Singh, B.K. Decentralized Consensus Blockchain and IPFS-Based Data Aggregation for Efficient Data Storage Scheme. Secur. Commun. Netw. 2022, 2022, 3167958.
  26. Zhang, L.; Zeng, W.; Jin, Z.; Su, Y.; Chen, H. A Research on Traceability Technology of Agricultural Products Supply Chain Based on Blockchain and IPFS. Secur. Commun. Netw. 2021, 2021, 3298514.
  27. Confais, B.; Lebre, A.; Parrein, B. An Object Store Service for a Fog/Edge Computing Infrastructure Based on IPFS and a Scale-Out NAS. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 1st International Conference on Fog and Edge Computing (ICFEC), Madrid, Spain, 14–15 May 2017.
  28. Nyamtiga, B.W.; Sicato, J.C.S.; Rathore, S.; Sung, Y.; Park, J.H. Blockchain-based secure storage management with edge computing for IoT. Electronics 2019, 8, 828.
  29. Radanliev, P.; de Roure, D. Review of Algorithms for Artificial Intelligence on Low Memory Devices. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 109986–109993.
  30. Ren, Y.; Leng, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, J. Secure data storage based on blockchain and coding in edge computing. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2019, 16, 1874–1892.
  31. Yuan, L.; He, Q.; Chen, F.; Zhang, J.; Qi, L.; Xu, X.; Xiang, Y.; Yang, Y. CSEdge: Enabling Collaborative Edge Storage for Multi-Access Edge Computing Based on Blockchain. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2022, 33, 1873–1887.
  32. Javed, A.; Heljanko, K.; Buda, A.; Främling, K. CEFIoT: A fault-tolerant IoT architecture for edge and cloud. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 4th world forum on internet of things (WF-IoT), Singapore, 5–8 February 2018; pp. 813–818.
  33. Wu, J.; Li, Y.; Ren, F.; Yang, B. Robust and auditable distributed data storage with scalability in edge computing. Ad Hoc Netw. 2021, 117, 102494.
  34. Nijim, M.; Albataineh, H. Secure-Stor: A Novel Hybrid Storage System Architecture to Enhance Security and Performance in Edge Computing. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 92446–92459.
  35. Liu, J.; Curry, M.L.; Maltzahn, C.; Kufeldt, P. Scale-out Edge Storage Systems with Embedded Storage Nodes to Get Better Availability and Cost-Efficiency At the Same Time. In Proceedings of the 3rd USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Edge Computing (HotEdge 20), Santa Clara, CA, USA, 6 February 2020.
  36. Jin, H.; Luo, R.; He, Q.; Wu, S.; Zeng, Z.; Xia, X. Cost-Effective Data Placement in Edge Storage Systems with Erasure Code. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 2022, 1.
  37. Elgazar, A.E.; Aazam, M.; Harras, K.A. SMC: Smart media compression for edge storage offloading. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Edge Computing (HotEdge 19), Renton, WA, USA, 9 July 2019.
  38. Radanliev, P.; Roure, D.D.; Burnap, P.; Santos, O. Epistemological Equation for Analysing Uncontrollable States in Complex Systems: Quantifying Cyber Risks from the Internet of Things. Rev. Socionetwork Strateg. 2021, 15, 381–411.
  39. Mao, S.; Wu, J.; Liu, L.; Lan, D.; Taherkordi, A. Energy-efficient cooperative communication and computation for wireless powered mobile-edge computing. IEEE Syst. J. 2020, 16, 287–298.
  40. Yan, C.; Zhang, Y.; Zhong, W.; Zhang, C.; Xin, B. A truncated SVD-based ARIMA model for multiple QoS prediction in mobile edge computing. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2021, 27, 315–324.
  41. Zeng, F.; Chen, Q.; Meng, L.; Wu, J. Volunteer assisted collaborative offloading and resource allocation in vehicular edge computing. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 22, 3247–3257.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Computer Science, Software Engineering
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Antonios Makris
,
Ioannis Kontopoulos
,
Evangelos Psomakelis
,
Stylianos Nektarios Xyalis
,
Theodoros Theodoropoulos
,
Konstantinos Tserpes
View Times: 275
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Sep 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback