Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

A Dynamic Approach to Load Balancing in Cloud Infrastructure: Enhancing Energy Efficiency and Resource Utilization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A Score-Based Dynamic Load Balancer that assigns tasks to the virtual machine with the most spare CPU, RAM, and bandwidth shortens average response times by 34%–37% over throttled load balancing in CloudSim simulations.

desk verdict The SBDLB paper's large gains over throttled are likely confounded by an unfair baseline (concurrency 1 vs 3), so the score's contribution remains unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05821 v1 pith:OFWKQXLO submitted 2025-08-07 cs.DC

Shadman Sakib , Ajay Katangur , Rahul Dubey This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DC
keywords loadbalancingcloudcomputingvirtualmachinesscore-basedschedulingSimresponsetimeenergyefficiencyresourceutilization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a Score-Based Dynamic Load Balancer (SBDLB) that sends each incoming task to the virtual machine with the most spare CPU, RAM, and bandwidth, after skipping VMs that already hold three tasks. It argues that this real-time scoring rule is a better allocation policy than the widely used throttled load balancer. Using CloudSim 7G simulations modeled on social-media workloads (100K–500K tasks, one to eight data centers, 10–80 VMs per center), the paper reports 34% and 37% lower average response times, 13% lower data-center processing time, and 15% lower 24-hour operating cost for SBDLB. The practical stake is that a simple, state-based rule could make cloud infrastructure more responsive and cheaper to run while using less energy.

What carries the argument

The scoring rule: after excluding VMs over a task threshold (set to 3), each remaining VM gets $Score = availableMIPS + availableRAM + availableBW$, and the task goes to the VM with the highest score. Min-max normalization (Equation 1) converts task length into VM resource units, so the score reflects whether a VM has enough spare resources for that specific task. This single real-time score carries the entire allocation decision; no history or prediction is used.

What would settle it

Run the same CloudSim 7G comparison with a different arrival pattern—for example, one long burst of tiny tasks followed by silence—and with the task threshold set to 2, 3, and 4. If the throttled strategy matches or beats SBDLB for some threshold/workload combination, the 34% and 37% response-time advantages are a tuning artifact rather than a property of the scoring rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SBDLB computes a per-VM suitability score as $Score = availableMIPS + availableRAM + availableBW$. A task's length is normalized using min-max scaling so its resource demand is expressed in the same units as each VM's available resources; VMs already holding three tasks are skipped, and a VM that cannot satisfy the normalized demand is assigned a score of $-1$. The VM with the highest score receives the task. In CloudSim 7G comparisons against throttled load balancing across four scenarios—VM scaling, data-center scaling, task allocation, and a 24-hour variation—with 100K–500K tasks, SBDLB achieves 34% and 37% lower average response times in two key tests, 13% lower data-center processing ti

Load-bearing premise

The VM task threshold of 3—selected by testing the same 100K–500K task workloads used for evaluation—is assumed to generalize to other load patterns; if it is overfit, the reported gains over throttled could come from tuning rather than from the scoring rule itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the same task volume, SBDLB keeps response times flat during peak hours where throttled shows spikes, suggesting better handling of daily demand cycles.
  • Operators can process 500K tasks with three data centers under SBDLB where throttled needs four for a comparable response time, reducing active infrastructure.
  • Over 24 hours, SBDLB's operating cost is $22,818 versus $26,246 for throttled, a 15% reduction that compounds with energy savings.
  • Across 100K–500K tasks, SBDLB lowers data-center processing time by 13% on average with reported p-values around $10^{-9}$ to $10^{-12}$, so the gains are consistent across the simulated workloads.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: Because SBDLB's score uses only current VM state, the same rule could be dropped into a production broker as a lightweight policy; its main risk would be stale resource readings, not algorithmic complexity.
  • Editorial extension: The threshold of 3 was tuned on the same workloads used for evaluation, so a fair transfer test would re-tune or adapt the cap per-VM capacity before concluding the gain is intrinsic.
  • Editorial extension: The reported 15% cost saving follows from shorter processing time in CloudSim's linear cost model; real energy savings would require active data-center power-down, which this simulation does not model.
  • Editorial extension: Weighting the three resource terms by actual task bottleneck (e.g., CPU-heavy video transcoding) could improve the score further; the paper does not test such weighted variants.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Score-Based Dynamic Load Balancer (SBDLB) that selects a virtual machine for each incoming task based on a score computed from available MIPS, RAM, and bandwidth, after filtering out VMs that exceed a task threshold of 3. The authors simulate a social-media-like workload (Reels, Images, Text) in CloudSim 7G with heterogeneous physical machines and VMs, and compare SBDLB against the throttled load balancing strategy in four scenarios: VM scalability, varying number of data centers, task allocation across high-/low-spec VMs, and a 24-hour load profile. They report that SBDLB reduces average response time by 34% and 37% in the two principal scenarios, reduces data center processing time by 13%, and lowers 24-hour operating cost by 15%, with p-values reported for the main comparisons.

Significance. If the comparison were clean, the contribution would be a simple, interpretable, dynamic load-balancing heuristic with clear energy/cost co-benefits. The manuscript is unusually explicit about its simulation setup and uses realistic workload proportions, which is commendable. However, the paper does not release code and the evaluation currently bundles a concurrency-threshold change with the scoring rule, so the headline improvements are not attributable to the proposed score. The experimental protocol also lacks replication details. The idea is promising and the issues are fixable with additional controlled experiments, but the central claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.D and §VI.A–B] The comparison does not isolate the scoring rule. §IV.D describes the throttled baseline as distributing tasks "sequentially across VMs," i.e., at most one active task per VM in the standard CloudSim implementation, while §IV.C sets a VM task threshold of 3 for SBDLB. The two systems therefore differ in concurrency limit (1 vs 3) as well as in the allocation score; the threshold itself was tuned on the same workload types used in evaluation. The reported 34% and 37% average response-time reductions and the 13% processing-time reduction (Figs. 5a, 6, 8; p-values in §VI.A/VI.B) could be driven largely by allowing three concurrent tasks per VM, not by the scoring rule. Please add controlled variants: throttled with threshold 3, SBDLB with threshold 1, and ideally a threshold-matched baseline, and report these comparisons for all scenarios.
  2. [§IV.C and §VI.A] The VM task threshold is selected using "extensive testing across workloads" on the same family of workloads (2000 tasks in 250 batches, 1–8 data centers, thresholds 2–4, Fig. 3) that later appear in the evaluation (100K–500K tasks). There is no held-out workload or cross-validation, and the plateau cutoff of 60 VMs in §VI.A comes from the same experimental family. Thus the reported improvements may reflect tuning of the concurrency allowance rather than a general property of the algorithm. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over thresholds (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) on held-out workloads and report the final workload results for each threshold.
  3. [§VI] The paper states "only one representative result per scenario" is shown and no replication counts, standard deviations, or error bars are reported. The p-values (e.g., 3.54e-10, 3.35e-12, 4.48e-9) are not accompanied by the number of independent runs, the statistical test used, or the distribution of the metric; without this, the significance claims are unverifiable. Please include at least 10–30 independent replications per configuration, report mean ± std (or boxplots), and specify the test and multiple-comparison handling.
  4. [§IV.A] The score is computed as a raw sum "availableMIPS + availableRAM + availableBW." These quantities have different units and scales (MIPS, MB, Mbps), so the sum is dominated by the metric with the largest numeric range and is not a principled resource-availability index. The text also describes normalizing the task length (Eq. 1) to the VM resource range, but does not normalize the resources before summation. Please either normalize each resource component to a common scale (e.g., 0–1) before summing, or justify the linear combination and show the score is not an artifact of unit choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table IV] Header contains a typo: "Analayzed" should be "Analyzed."
  2. [Fig. 5] Caption contains "Accross" (should be "Across"). Also, neither Figure 3 nor Figure 5 clearly labels axes or gives units for response time.
  3. [§VI.A] The claim that "preliminary results" show response time plateaus beyond 80 VMs is not shown; please include or cite the supporting data for this cutoff and for the 60-VM standard.
  4. [§VI.C] The task-allocation comparison (Fig. 9) is qualitative only; provide a quantitative summary, such as the percentage of tasks assigned to high-spec VMs under each policy, and a significance test if possible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

SBDLB's reported response-time gains are partly an artifact of tuning the VM concurrency threshold on the same workloads used for evaluation, rather than an independent out-of-sample prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.C (Setting Up Task Threshold) and Sections VI.A–VI.B (S-1/S-2 evaluation)]
    "Extensive testing across workloads (Figure 3) using 1 to 8 data centers, 2000 tasks across 250 batches, and thresholds of 2, 3, and 4, revealed that a threshold of 3 offered optimal performance. It matched the efficiency of threshold 4 while yielding lower response times than threshold 2. A threshold of 5 caused overload in single DC setups due to limited capacity."

    The threshold is a core SBDLB parameter: it caps concurrent tasks per VM and excludes VMs from scoring. It was selected by minimizing response time on workloads up to 500K tasks (2000 tasks × 250 batches), the same range used in the evaluation scenarios (100K–500K). The later reported reductions in average response time (34% and 37%) are therefore measurements of a system already tuned on those workloads, not independent predictions. Moreover, the throttled baseline is described as distributing tasks sequentially (Sec. IV.D), i.e., a concurrency limit of 1, while SBDLB uses the tuned limit of 3. The comparison thus bundles the fitted threshold with the score; the p-values in VI.A/VI.B test this bundled difference and cannot separate the score's contribution.

full rationale

The paper's core mechanism—the SBDLB score—is not circular: it is defined from available MIPS/RAM/BW and is not derived from the measured outcomes. However, the central empirical claim that SBDLB cuts response times by 34–37% is not fully independent. Section IV.C selects the VM task threshold (=3) by 'extensive testing' over the same workload sizes later used in Scenarios 1 and 2 (100K–500K tasks). That threshold directly controls how many tasks can run concurrently on each VM and which VMs are eligible for scoring, so it is a fitted input that shapes the response-time results. The throttled baseline is described as distributing tasks sequentially (a concurrency limit of 1), so the comparison bundles the tuned concurrency allowance with the score. The p-values only establish that the two bundled implementations differ; they cannot attribute the improvement to the scoring rule. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem; the authors' prior self-citations appear only in related work and are not used to justify SBDLB. Thus the central performance claim is partially a fitted outcome rather than a clean out-of-sample prediction, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unvalidated simulation assumptions: that CloudSim behavior matches real clouds, that the workload model (task sizes and CI ranges) is realistic, and that cost is a valid proxy for energy. The fitted task threshold and VM count are explicit numerically tuned choices that affect the reported gains.

free parameters (2)
  • VM task threshold = 3
    Selected by empirical testing across workloads (Figure 3, Section IV.C); used in all evaluation scenarios and directly controls which VMs are eligible.
  • VM count plateau cutoff = 60
    Chosen in Scenario 1 as the point where response time plateaus; then used as the fixed VM count for Scenarios 2-4.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CloudSim 7G simulation faithfully represents cloud data center behavior for response time, processing time, and cost.
    All conclusions are drawn from simulation (Sections III.B and V.A) with no validation against a real cloud environment.
  • domain assumption Task computational demand is modeled as MI = Data Size x CI / 10^6, with CI ranges 10-100 (text), 500-1000 (images), and 1000-10000 (video).
    Section V.B states these ranges as representative values, but they are not calibrated from actual workloads.
  • domain assumption Operational cost is linearly proportional to CPU active time at $3 per second, with energy use inferred from cost.
    Tables I, Section IV.B, and Section VI.E use CPU active time as the sole cost driver; no direct energy model is included.
  • standard math P-values computed from simulation runs are valid, assuming independent runs and appropriate distributional assumptions.
    Section VI reports p-values but does not state the number of runs, seeds, or distributional checks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Dynamic Approach to Load Balancing in Cloud Infrastructure: Enhancing Energy Efficiency and Resource Utilization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OFWKQXLO

@misc{pith2026250805821,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Dynamic Approach to Load Balancing in Cloud Infrastructure: Enhancing Energy Efficiency and Resource Utilization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OFWKQXLO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05821}
}
read the original abstract

Cloud computing has grown rapidly in recent years, mainly due to the sharp increase in data transferred over the internet. This growth makes load balancing a key part of cloud systems, as it helps distribute user requests across servers to maintain performance, prevent overload, and ensure a smooth user experience. Despite its importance, managing server resources and keeping workloads balanced over time remains a major challenge in cloud environments. This paper introduces a novel Score-Based Dynamic Load Balancer (SBDLB) that allocates workloads to virtual machines based on real-time performance metrics. The objective is to enhance resource utilization and overall system efficiency. The method was thoroughly tested using the CloudSim 7G platform, comparing its performance against the throttled load balancing strategy. Evaluations were conducted across a variety of workloads and scenarios, demonstrating the SBDLB's ability to adapt dynamically to workload fluctuations while optimizing resource usage. The proposed method outperformed the throttled strategy, improving average response times by 34% and 37% in different scenarios. It also reduced data center processing times by an average of 13%. Over a 24-hour simulation, the method decreased operational costs by 15%, promoting a more energy-efficient and sustainable cloud infrastructure through reduced energy consumption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.05821 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. illustrates a simplified cloud infrastructure, where users send requests through a central gateway to dis￾tributed data centers. Load balancing ensures these re￾quests are efficiently routed, preventing overload and max￾imizing resource utilization [24]. Consider a cloud service provider with globally distributed data centers: DC = {DC1, DC2, DC3, . . . , DCd}, each consisting of hundreds of physical machines. These… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. illustrates the flow of the proposed approach. When a task arrives, the system first scans the available VMs, excluding those that exceed a predefined task threshold. For the remaining VMs, key parameters such as available CPU utilization (MIPS), RAM, and bandwidth are retrieved. To determine the resource requirements for each incoming task, the system considers the task length, which falls within a predefined range… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average Response Time with Varying Task Threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Task Scheduling and Load Balancing Flow in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance Metric Over 10 - 80 VMs for 500K Tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DC Processing Time Over 1-8 DCs And Task Size of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Data Center Operating Costs for 500K Tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average Response Time by Hour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: DC Processing Time by Hour reduces energy use and operational costs, making it a more cost-effective cloud solution. 3) DC Operating Cost Per Hour: Hourly data center costs follow the trend in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Overview of cloud computing deployment mode and technology development trend,

    Y . Li, W. Zhao, Y . Su, W. Li, and C. Yuan, “Overview of cloud computing deployment mode and technology development trend,” in 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A survey on security chal- lenges in cloud computing: issues, threats, and solutions,

    H. Tabrizchi and M. Kuchaki Rafsanjani, “A survey on security chal- lenges in cloud computing: issues, threats, and solutions,” The journal of supercomputing, vol. 76, no. 12, pp. 9493–9532, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    An investigation of various applications and related challenges in cloud computing,

    H. Pallathadka, G. S. Sajja, K. Phasinam, M. Ritonga, M. Naved, R. Bansal, and J. Qui ˜nonez-Choquecota, “An investigation of various applications and related challenges in cloud computing,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 51, pp. 2245–2248, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Infrastructure as a service (iaas) market size to hit usd 898.52 bn by 2034,

    S. Zoting, “Infrastructure as a service (iaas) market size to hit usd 898.52 bn by 2034,” January 28 2025, accessed: March 5, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.precedenceresearch.com/infrastructure- as-a-service-market

    work page

  5. [5]

    Dynamic load balancing strategy based on resource classification technique in iaas cloud,

    S. Paul and M. Adhikari, “Dynamic load balancing strategy based on resource classification technique in iaas cloud,” in 2018 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informat- ics (ICACCI). IEEE, 2018, pp. 2059–2065

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Dynamic load balancing algorithm for balancing the workload among virtual machine in cloud computing,

    M. Kumar and S. C. Sharma, “Dynamic load balancing algorithm for balancing the workload among virtual machine in cloud computing,” Procedia computer science , vol. 115, pp. 322–329, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    A proposed load balancing algorithm over cloud computing (balanced throttled),

    S. Y . Mohamed, M. H. N. Taha, H. N. Elmahdy, and H. Harb, “A proposed load balancing algorithm over cloud computing (balanced throttled),” International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 28–33, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Ita: The improved throttled algorithm of load balancing on cloud computing,

    H. N. Le and H. C. Tran, “Ita: The improved throttled algorithm of load balancing on cloud computing,” International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) , vol. 14, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Amount of data created daily (2024),

    F. Duarte, “Amount of data created daily (2024),” Exploding Topics, June 13 2024, accessed: 2025. [Online]. Available: https://explodingtopics.com/blog/data-generated-per-day

    2024

  2. [10]

    Big data with cloud computing: Discussions and challenges,

    A. K. Sandhu, “Big data with cloud computing: Discussions and challenges,” Big Data Mining and Analytics , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 32–40, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    A survey of load balancing challenges in cloud environment proceedings of the smart—2016,

    S. Jain, “A survey of load balancing challenges in cloud environment proceedings of the smart—2016,” in IEEE Conference ID , vol. 39669, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    A fast converging and globally optimized approach for load balancing in cloud computing,

    M. S. Al Reshan, D. Syed, N. Islam, A. Shaikh, M. Hamdi, M. A. Elmagzoub, G. Muhammad, and K. H. Talpur, “A fast converging and globally optimized approach for load balancing in cloud computing,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 11 390–11 404, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    An improved dynamic smooth weighted round-robin load-balancing algorithm,

    C. Gao and H. Wu, “An improved dynamic smooth weighted round-robin load-balancing algorithm,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2404, no. 1. IOP Publishing, 2022, p. 012047

    2022

  6. [14]

    Dynamic threshold based load balancing algorithms,

    N. Rathore, “Dynamic threshold based load balancing algorithms,” Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 151–185, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Priority weighted round robin algorithm for load balancing in the cloud,

    A. Katangur, S. Akkaladevi, and S. Vivekanandhan, “Priority weighted round robin algorithm for load balancing in the cloud,” in 2022 IEEE 7th international conference on smart cloud (SmartCloud). IEEE, 2022, pp. 230–235

    2022

  8. [16]

    Threshold based load balancing algorithm in cloud computing,

    S. Chowdhury and A. Katangur, “Threshold based load balancing algorithm in cloud computing,” in 2022 IEEE international conference on joint cloud computing (JCC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 23–28

    2022

  9. [17]

    A load balancing algorithm for the data centres to optimize cloud computing applications,

    D. A. Shafiq, N. Z. Jhanjhi, A. Abdullah, and M. A. Alzain, “A load balancing algorithm for the data centres to optimize cloud computing applications,” Ieee Access, vol. 9, pp. 41 731–41 744, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Genetic algorithm based service broker policy to find optimal datacen- ters in cloud services,

    S. Chowdhury, A. Katangur, A. Sheta, N. R. Psayadala, and S. Liu, “Genetic algorithm based service broker policy to find optimal datacen- ters in cloud services,” in 2023 8th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics (ICCCBDA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 270– 278

    2023

  11. [19]

    Observations on using genetic algo- rithms for dynamic load-balancing,

    A. Y . Zomaya and Y .-H. Teh, “Observations on using genetic algo- rithms for dynamic load-balancing,” IEEE transactions on parallel and distributed systems, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 899–911, 2001

    2001

  12. [20]

    Analytical study on load balancing algorithms in cloud computing,

    M. Pai, S. Rajarajeswari, D. Akarsha, and S. Ashwini, “Analytical study on load balancing algorithms in cloud computing,” in Expert Clouds and Applications: Proceedings of ICOECA 2021 . Springer, 2022, pp. 631– 646

    2021

  13. [21]

    Cloud load balancing using meta- heuristics,

    M. Gokul and M. Balamurali, “Cloud load balancing using meta- heuristics,” in 2022 6th International Conference on Intelligent Com- puting and Control Systems (ICICCS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 589–595

    2022

  14. [22]

    Green cloud computing: an approach towards sustainabil- ity,

    G. Sriram, “Green cloud computing: an approach towards sustainabil- ity,” International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1263–1268, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Ecocloud: Green computing through energy and carbon efficient task scheduling in industrial iot-enabled cloud environments,

    U. Demirbaga, “Ecocloud: Green computing through energy and carbon efficient task scheduling in industrial iot-enabled cloud environments,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Virtual machine schedul- ing strategy based on machine learning algorithms for load balancing,

    X. Sui, D. Liu, L. Li, H. Wang, and H. Yang, “Virtual machine schedul- ing strategy based on machine learning algorithms for load balancing,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking , vol. 2019, no. 1, p. 160, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Cloudsim 7g: An integrated toolkit for modeling and simulation of future generation cloud computing environments,

    R. Andreoli, J. Zhao, T. Cucinotta, and R. Buyya, “Cloudsim 7g: An integrated toolkit for modeling and simulation of future generation cloud computing environments,” Software: Practice and Experience , 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Virtual machine migration implementation in load balancing for cloud comput- ing,

    R. A. M. Razali, R. Ab Rahman, N. Zaini, and M. Samad, “Virtual machine migration implementation in load balancing for cloud comput- ing,” in 2014 5th International Conference on Intelligent and Advanced Systems (ICIAS). IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–4

    2014

  19. [27]

    A novel approach for load balancing in cloud data center,

    G. Soni and M. Kalra, “A novel approach for load balancing in cloud data center,” in 2014 IEEE international advance computing conference (IACC). IEEE, 2014, pp. 807–812

    2014

  20. [28]

    M. Zhang. Meta’s data center locations for facebook and instagram. [Online]. Available: https://dgtlinfra.com/meta-data-center-locations- facebook/

  21. [29]

    Q. Team. (2025, January 27) Facebook reels in 2025: Definitive guide for marketers. [Online]. Available: https://quickframe.com/blog/facebook- reels-guide-for-marketers/

    2025

  22. [30]

    D. Lamaj. (2024, August 14) Facebook image sizes - must-read guide (updated). Publer Blog. [Online]. Available: https://publer.com/blog/facebook-image-sizes/

    2024

  23. [31]

    McCormick

    K. McCormick. (2024, 1) 75 staggering video marketing statistics. WordStream. [Online]. Available: https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2017/03/08/video- marketing-statistics

    2024

  24. [32]

    E. Lukan. (2023, 11) 50 video statistics you can’t ignore in 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.synthesia.io/post/video-statistics

    2023

  25. [33]

    (2018, 6) State of visual content marketing: the statistics

    Crackitt. (2018, 6) State of visual content marketing: the statistics. [Online]. Available: https://www.crackitt.com/state-of-visual-content- marketing-videos-images-statistics/

    2018

  26. [34]

    Simulation of a large scaled web application on the cloud using cloud analyst,

    P. Rajput and S. Kumar, “Simulation of a large scaled web application on the cloud using cloud analyst,” Simulation, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 46–56, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Performance analysis of cloud applications using cloud analyst,

    A. K. Dubey and V . Mishra, “Performance analysis of cloud applications using cloud analyst,” in 2017 7th International Conference on Commu- nication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 79–84

    2017

  28. [36]

    Modeling the green cloud continuum: integrating energy considerations into cloud– edge models,

    Y . S. Patel, P. Townend, A. Singh, and P.-O. ¨Ostberg, “Modeling the green cloud continuum: integrating energy considerations into cloud– edge models,” Cluster Computing, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 4095–4125, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.