Multi-Point Synchronization for Fog-Controlled Internet of Things

Muthucumaru Maheswaran; Richard Olaniyan

arxiv: 1906.09963 · v1 · pith:SA3QWTRAnew · submitted 2019-06-20 · 💻 cs.DC

Multi-Point Synchronization for Fog-Controlled Internet of Things

Richard Olaniyan , Muthucumaru Maheswaran This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 18:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC

keywords fog computingIoT synchronizationscheduling algorithmspublish-subscriberedundancy mechanismsmulti-point synchronizationworker failuresdisconnection handling

0 comments

The pith

A fog-resident controller architecture coordinates synchronized task scheduling across large IoT collections by using redundancy for failures and publish-subscribe updates to reduce controller overhead.

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

The paper develops scheduling algorithms that assign tasks with strict or relaxed timing requirements to worker nodes managed by a fog controller, even when disconnections and failures occur. It groups synchronization needs into classes and applies either time-based or component-based redundancy to keep operations running. A publish-subscribe message scheme is embedded to limit the growth of controller traffic as the number of workers rises. Trace-driven experiments test the approach, and one algorithm variant is implemented in a polyglot platform for cloud of things to show initial feasibility.

Core claim

The paper presents multi-point synchronous scheduling algorithms that place tasks with varying timing needs onto worker nodes under a fog controller, using time-based or component-based redundancy to tolerate disconnections and failures while embedding a publish-subscribe update scheme that lowers message overhead at the controller as worker count grows.

What carries the argument

Multi-point synchronous scheduling algorithms that incorporate time-based or component-based redundancy to handle failures and a publish-subscribe message update scheme to scale messaging.

If this is right

The algorithms handle both strict synchronous timing and relaxed asynchronous or local timing requirements.
Controller message overhead decreases as the number of workers increases due to the publish-subscribe scheme.
Trace-driven experiments confirm performance under disconnections and worker failures.
Implementation of the time-based redundancy algorithm in a polyglot platform for cloud of things demonstrates practical use.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The architecture could support coordination in mobile IoT groups where connection quality changes rapidly.
The redundancy choices might trade off between extra computation at workers and extra messages from the controller.
Extending the publish-subscribe layer to existing IoT protocols could further lower overhead in mixed deployments.

Load-bearing premise

The publish-subscribe scheme and redundancy mechanisms will maintain synchronization correctness and scale without introducing unacceptable latency or overhead in real-world deployments with variable disconnections.

What would settle it

Running the algorithms with increasing worker counts under high simulated disconnection rates and checking whether message overhead at the controller actually decreases or synchronization errors appear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.09963 by Muthucumaru Maheswaran, Richard Olaniyan.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Taxonomy of synchronization in IoT. consisting of a large number of bulbs, to light up (cover) a particular area, only a subset of the bulbs need to be turned on at the same time. Synchronization can be used to incrementally change the lighting intensity or maintain a constant lighting intensity. C. Example Deployment Scenarios Three application scenarios where synchronization among devices is of high impo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Task model showing synchronous, asynchronous and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Multi-level hierarchical node model showing controller, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Sequence diagram showing the interactions between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Maximum synchronization rate per 10s for varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Runtime per sync point comparing all-worker update [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: CDF showing percentage of sync task failures due to incomplete results from clusters for minimum cluster sizes ranging from 1 to 4 for component-based redundancy. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 C D F Percentage sync failure due to quorum clus-size=1 clus-size=2 clus-size=3 clus-size=4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Runtime per sync point comparing the proposed time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Percentage of sync task failures caused by failed quorum for timeredundant synchronization algorithm vs time slotted synchronization. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 100 1000 R u n tim e / s y n c p oin t ( s ) Number of machines Component-Redundant Sync Barrier Sync Time Slotting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Observed execution time(s) for the implementation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

This paper presents a fog-resident controller architecture for synchronizing the operations of large collections of Internet of Things (IoT) such as drones, Internet of Vehicles, etc. Synchronization in IoT is grouped into different classes, use cases identified and multi-point synchronous scheduling algorithms are developed to schedule tasks with varying timing requirements; strict (synchronous) and relaxed (asynchronous and local) onto a bunch of worker nodes that are coordinated by a fog resident controller in the presence of disconnections and worker failures. The algorithms use time-based or component-based redundancy to cope with failures and embed a publish-subscribe message update scheme to reduce the message overhead at the controller as the number of workers increase. The performance of the algorithms are evaluated using trace-driven experiments and practicability is shown by implementing the time-based redundancy synchronous scheduling algorithm in JAMScript -- a polyglot programming platform for Cloud of Things and report initial findings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a practical fog-controller architecture and scheduling algorithms for IoT device synchronization that handle disconnections via two redundancy types and cut controller messages with publish-subscribe.

read the letter

The core contribution is a set of multi-point scheduling algorithms that assign strict synchronous tasks and relaxed asynchronous ones to worker nodes under a fog controller, using time-based or component-based redundancy to keep things running when nodes drop out. They also layer in a publish-subscribe update scheme so the controller does not get swamped as the number of workers grows. The authors back this with trace-driven experiments and a working implementation of the time-based version inside JAMScript, which is more than many architecture papers deliver. That combination of domain-specific redundancy choices and the scaling mechanism is the genuinely new piece relative to earlier distributed scheduling work. The approach stays grounded in standard concepts like redundancy and pub-sub without inventing new primitives, and the use-case breakdown for different timing requirements is clear and useful. The main limitation is that the abstract stays high-level: no pseudocode, no equations for the scheduling rules, and no quantitative results on latency, overhead, or synchronization error rates. Without those numbers it is hard to judge whether the redundancy actually preserves correctness under realistic disconnection patterns or whether the pub-sub savings are large enough to matter. The stress-test note found no internal contradictions, but the low-confidence verdict from the reader is fair given how little detail is visible here. This work is aimed at researchers and engineers building coordinated IoT systems in fog or edge settings, such as vehicle fleets or drone swarms. Anyone already working on scheduling under partial connectivity would find the architecture and the JAMScript report worth reading. It is solid enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee rather than a desk reject; the concrete implementation and evaluation plan give referees something real to check even if the current write-up needs more numbers and proof details.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a fog-resident controller architecture for synchronizing large collections of IoT devices (e.g., drones, vehicles). Synchronization is classified into strict (synchronous) and relaxed (asynchronous/local) types with identified use cases; multi-point scheduling algorithms are developed to assign tasks to worker nodes under disconnections and failures. The algorithms incorporate time-based or component-based redundancy for fault tolerance and a publish-subscribe update scheme to reduce controller message overhead as worker count grows. Performance is assessed via trace-driven experiments, and practicability is demonstrated by implementing the time-based redundancy algorithm in the JAMScript platform with initial findings reported.

Significance. If the mechanisms and evaluations hold, the work could offer practical contributions to fault-tolerant, scalable synchronization in fog-controlled IoT systems by combining standard distributed-systems ideas (redundancy, pub-sub) with domain-specific scheduling. The trace-driven evaluation and JAMScript implementation provide concrete grounding beyond pure theory. However, the absence of formal specifications, pseudocode, or quantitative results in the abstract (and apparently limited detail in the manuscript) makes it difficult to determine whether the central performance and overhead claims are actually supported.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (algorithm description): the central claims that the redundancy mechanisms and publish-subscribe scheme maintain synchronization correctness while reducing overhead as the number of workers increases are not supported by any equations, pseudocode, or formal invariants. Without these, it is impossible to verify the correctness or scaling properties asserted in the abstract.
[Evaluation] Evaluation section: trace-driven experiments are referenced but no specific metrics (latency, overhead, failure-recovery times), baselines, or quantitative results are supplied, undermining the ability to assess whether the algorithms meet the performance claims under variable disconnections.

minor comments (2)

The classification of synchronization use cases and the distinction between time-based vs. component-based redundancy would benefit from explicit definitions or a table early in the manuscript.
The JAMScript implementation section reports only 'initial findings'; more detail on what was measured and any observed limitations would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that will add the requested formal elements and quantitative details without altering the core contributions of the work.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (algorithm description): the central claims that the redundancy mechanisms and publish-subscribe scheme maintain synchronization correctness while reducing overhead as the number of workers increases are not supported by any equations, pseudocode, or formal invariants. Without these, it is impossible to verify the correctness or scaling properties asserted in the abstract.

Authors: We agree that the current description in the abstract and Section 3 relies on textual explanations of the time-based and component-based redundancy mechanisms together with the publish-subscribe update scheme. While the design rationale for maintaining correctness under disconnections and for reducing controller overhead is presented, we acknowledge the absence of pseudocode and explicit invariants. In the revised manuscript we will add pseudocode for the multi-point scheduling algorithms and a short subsection outlining the key correctness invariants (e.g., that redundant task assignments preserve synchronization deadlines). This will make the scaling claims verifiable. revision: yes
Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: trace-driven experiments are referenced but no specific metrics (latency, overhead, failure-recovery times), baselines, or quantitative results are supplied, undermining the ability to assess whether the algorithms meet the performance claims under variable disconnections.

Authors: The evaluation section describes trace-driven experiments and reports initial findings from the JAMScript implementation, yet we accept that concrete metrics, baselines, and quantitative results are not supplied. In the revision we will expand this section with tables and figures reporting latency, message overhead, and failure-recovery times under varying disconnection rates, together with explicit baseline comparisons (e.g., against a centralized scheduler without redundancy). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper presents a fog-resident controller architecture for IoT synchronization, describing multi-point scheduling algorithms that incorporate time-based or component-based redundancy and a publish-subscribe scheme. These are standard distributed systems techniques applied to handle failures and reduce overhead, evaluated via trace-driven experiments and a JAMScript implementation. No equations, parameter fittings, self-citations, or derivations are present that reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. The central claims rest on external concepts and empirical evaluation rather than self-referential definitions or forced predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract does not introduce any free parameters, domain-specific axioms beyond standard distributed systems assumptions, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5683 in / 1053 out tokens · 26650 ms · 2026-05-25T18:56:25.192951+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Two redundancy-based dynamic synchronous scheduling algorithms... publish-subscribe message update scheme... quorum checking
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean LogicNat recovery theorem unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

time-based or component-based redundancy to cope with failures

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

A fog based system model for cooperative iot node pairing using matching theory,

S. F. Abedin, M. G. R. Alam, N. H. Tran, and C. S. Hong, “A fog based system model for cooperative iot node pairing using matching theory,” in Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS), 2015 17th Asia-Paciﬁc. IEEE, 2015, pp. 309–314

work page 2015
[2]

Clock synchronization of wireless sensor networks,

Y . C. Wu, Q. Chaudhari, and E. Serpedin, “Clock synchronization of wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 124–138, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Psync: Visible light-based time synchronization for internet of things (iot),

X. Guo, M. Mohammad, S. Saha, M. C. Chan, S. Gilbert, and D. Leong, “Psync: Visible light-based time synchronization for internet of things (iot),” 2016

work page 2016
[4]

The swarm at the edge of the cloud,

E. A. Lee, B. Hartmann, J. Kubiatowicz, T. S. Rosing, J. Wawrzynek, D. Wessel, J. Rabaey, K. Pister, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, S. A. Seshia et al., “The swarm at the edge of the cloud,” IEEE Design & Test, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 8–20, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

Fog computing and its role in the internet of things,

F. Bonomi, R. Milito, J. Zhu, and S. Addepalli, “Fog computing and its role in the internet of things,” in Proceedings of the ﬁrst edition of the MCC workshop on Mobile cloud computing . ACM, 2012, pp. 13–16

work page 2012
[6]

A pro- gramming language and system for heterogeneous cloud of things,

R. Wenger, X. Zhu, J. Krishnamurthy, and M. Maheswaran, “A pro- gramming language and system for heterogeneous cloud of things,” in Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC), 2016 IEEE 2nd Interna- tional Conference on . IEEE, 2016, pp. 169–177

work page 2016
[7]

Scheduling gangs in a distributed system,

H. D. Karatza, “Scheduling gangs in a distributed system,” International Journal of Simulation: Systems, Science Technology, UK Simulation Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 15–22, 2006

work page 2006
[8]

Dynamic coscheduling on workstation clusters,

P. G. Sobalvarro, S. Pakin, W. E. Weihl, and A. A. Chien, “Dynamic coscheduling on workstation clusters,” in Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing. Springer, 1998, pp. 231–256

work page 1998
[9]

A bridging model for parallel computation,

L. G. Valiant, “A bridging model for parallel computation,” Communi- cations of the ACM , vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 103–111, 1990

work page 1990
[10]

Mizan: a system for dynamic load balancing in large-scale graph processing,

Z. Khayyat, K. Awara, A. Alonazi, H. Jamjoom, D. Williams, and P. Kalnis, “Mizan: a system for dynamic load balancing in large-scale graph processing,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems . ACM, 2013, pp. 169–182

work page 2013
[11]

Stratus: A distributed computing framework for scientiﬁc simulations on the cloud,

P. Jakovits, S. N. Srirama, and I. Kromonov, “Stratus: A distributed computing framework for scientiﬁc simulations on the cloud,” in 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communication & 2012 IEEE 9th International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems . IEEE, 2012, pp. 1053–1059

work page 2012
[12]

Fast join and synchronization schema in the ieee 802.15. 4e mac,

E. V ogli, G. Ribezzo, L. A. Grieco, and G. Boggia, “Fast join and synchronization schema in the ieee 802.15. 4e mac,” in 2015 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WC- NCW). IEEE, 2015, pp. 85–90

work page 2015
[13]

Time-slotted round-trip carrier synchroniza- tion,

I. Ozil and D. R. Brown, “Time-slotted round-trip carrier synchroniza- tion,” in 2007 Conference Record of the Forty-First Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers . IEEE, 2007, pp. 1781–1785

work page 2007
[14]

The design and implementation of mina-based smart home data synchronization system,

F. Liu and W. Guo, “The design and implementation of mina-based smart home data synchronization system,” in 2015 Fifth International Confer- ence on Instrumentation and Measurement, Computer, Communication and Control (IMCCC) , Sept 2015, pp. 1612–1616

work page 2015
[15]

The use of drones in air cargo transportation,

H. Chalupn ´ıˇckov´a, P. Bahensk`y, V . S`ykora, and D. Heralov´a, “The use of drones in air cargo transportation,” Economy & Society & Environment , vol. 4509, pp. 1–6, 2014

work page 2014
[16]

Autonomous and automated and connected cars-oh my: ﬁrst generation autonomous cars in the legal ecosystem,

D. J. Glancy, “Autonomous and automated and connected cars-oh my: ﬁrst generation autonomous cars in the legal ecosystem,” Minn. JL Sci. & Tech., vol. 16, p. 619, 2015

work page 2015
[17]

Intelligent car control for a smart car,

M. N. Hasan, S. Didar-Al-Alam, and S. R. Huq, “Intelligent car control for a smart car,”International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 15–19, 2011

work page 2011
[18]

Time-triggered ethernet and ieee 1588 clock synchronization,

A. Ademaj and H. Kopetz, “Time-triggered ethernet and ieee 1588 clock synchronization,” in Precision Clock Synchronization for Measurement, Control and Communication, 2007. ISPCS 2007. IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 2007, pp. 41–43

work page 2007
[19]

A review of research in multi-robot sys- tems,

A. Gautam and S. Mohan, “A review of research in multi-robot sys- tems,” in Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS), 2012 7th IEEE International Conference on . IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–5

work page 2012
[20]

Software-deﬁned networking: A comprehensive survey,

D. Kreutz, F. M. Ramos, P. E. Verissimo, C. E. Rothenberg, S. Azodol- molky, and S. Uhlig, “Software-deﬁned networking: A comprehensive survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 14–76, 2015

work page 2015
[21]

Actively measuring personal cloud storage,

R. Gracia-Tinedo, M. S. Artigas, A. Moreno-Martinez, C. Cotes, and P. G. Lopez, “Actively measuring personal cloud storage,” in Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on . IEEE, 2013, pp. 301–308

work page 2013
[22]

Towards mobility-based clustering,

S. Liu, Y . Liu, L. M. Ni, J. Fan, and M. Li, “Towards mobility-based clustering,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . ACM, 2010, pp. 919–928

work page 2010
[23]

A scalable synchronization protocol for large scale sensor networks and its applications,

Y .-W. Hong and A. Scaglione, “A scalable synchronization protocol for large scale sensor networks and its applications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1085–1099, 2005

work page 2005
[24]

Self-synchronization in duty- cycled internet of things (iot) applications,

P. Yadav, J. A. McCann, and T. Pereira, “Self-synchronization in duty- cycled internet of things (iot) applications,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 2058–2069, 2017

work page 2058
[25]

Fireﬂy-inspired heartbeat synchronization in overlay networks,

O. Babaoglu, T. Binci, M. Jelasity, and A. Montresor, “Fireﬂy-inspired heartbeat synchronization in overlay networks,” in Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems, 2007. SASO’07. First International Conference on. IEEE, 2007, pp. 77–86

work page 2007
[26]

Synchronization of distributed systems,

A. Vrancic, “Synchronization of distributed systems,” Sep. 26 2006, uS Patent 7,114,091

work page 2006
[27]

Temperature-resilient time synchronization for the internet of things,

A. Elsts, X. Fafoutis, S. Duquennoy, G. Oikonomou, R. J. Piechocki, and I. Craddock, “Temperature-resilient time synchronization for the internet of things,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , 2017

work page 2017
[28]

Multiprocessor synchronization and hierarchical scheduling,

F. Nemati, M. Behnam, and T. Nolte, “Multiprocessor synchronization and hierarchical scheduling,” in Parallel Processing Workshops, 2009. ICPPW’09. International Conference on . IEEE, 2009, pp. 58–64

work page 2009
[29]

A scheduling algorithm for synchroniza- tion task in embedded multicore systems,

S. Zeng, B. He, and J. Jiang, “A scheduling algorithm for synchroniza- tion task in embedded multicore systems,” Journal of Computational Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 8531–8541, 2014

work page 2014
[30]

Coordinated task scheduling, allocation and synchronization on multiprocessors,

K. Lakshmanan, D. de Niz, and R. Rajkumar, “Coordinated task scheduling, allocation and synchronization on multiprocessors,” in Real- Time Systems Symposium, 2009, RTSS 2009. 30th IEEE . IEEE, 2009, pp. 469–478

work page 2009
[31]

Gang scheduling with memory considera- tions,

A. Batat and D. G. Feitelson, “Gang scheduling with memory considera- tions,” in Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, 2000. IPDPS

work page 2000
[32]

14th International

Proceedings. 14th International . IEEE, 2000, pp. 109–114. Richard Olaniyan is a PhD student in the School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada being sponsored by the Presidential Scholar- ship Scheme of the Nigerian Government/Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) Nigeria. He received his MSc degree in Computer Science at the U...

work page 2000
[33]

His research interests include synchronization and scheduling in clouds, clusters, fog computing, edge computing, vehicular clouds and computing models

He Received his BSc degree in Computer Engineering from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile- Ife, Nigeria in 2011, where he graduated as the best student in the department bagging two awards. His research interests include synchronization and scheduling in clouds, clusters, fog computing, edge computing, vehicular clouds and computing models. Muthucumaru Mahe...

work page 2011

[1] [1]

A fog based system model for cooperative iot node pairing using matching theory,

S. F. Abedin, M. G. R. Alam, N. H. Tran, and C. S. Hong, “A fog based system model for cooperative iot node pairing using matching theory,” in Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS), 2015 17th Asia-Paciﬁc. IEEE, 2015, pp. 309–314

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Clock synchronization of wireless sensor networks,

Y . C. Wu, Q. Chaudhari, and E. Serpedin, “Clock synchronization of wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 124–138, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Psync: Visible light-based time synchronization for internet of things (iot),

X. Guo, M. Mohammad, S. Saha, M. C. Chan, S. Gilbert, and D. Leong, “Psync: Visible light-based time synchronization for internet of things (iot),” 2016

work page 2016

[4] [4]

The swarm at the edge of the cloud,

E. A. Lee, B. Hartmann, J. Kubiatowicz, T. S. Rosing, J. Wawrzynek, D. Wessel, J. Rabaey, K. Pister, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, S. A. Seshia et al., “The swarm at the edge of the cloud,” IEEE Design & Test, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 8–20, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Fog computing and its role in the internet of things,

F. Bonomi, R. Milito, J. Zhu, and S. Addepalli, “Fog computing and its role in the internet of things,” in Proceedings of the ﬁrst edition of the MCC workshop on Mobile cloud computing . ACM, 2012, pp. 13–16

work page 2012

[6] [6]

A pro- gramming language and system for heterogeneous cloud of things,

R. Wenger, X. Zhu, J. Krishnamurthy, and M. Maheswaran, “A pro- gramming language and system for heterogeneous cloud of things,” in Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC), 2016 IEEE 2nd Interna- tional Conference on . IEEE, 2016, pp. 169–177

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Scheduling gangs in a distributed system,

H. D. Karatza, “Scheduling gangs in a distributed system,” International Journal of Simulation: Systems, Science Technology, UK Simulation Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 15–22, 2006

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Dynamic coscheduling on workstation clusters,

P. G. Sobalvarro, S. Pakin, W. E. Weihl, and A. A. Chien, “Dynamic coscheduling on workstation clusters,” in Workshop on Job Scheduling Strategies for Parallel Processing. Springer, 1998, pp. 231–256

work page 1998

[9] [9]

A bridging model for parallel computation,

L. G. Valiant, “A bridging model for parallel computation,” Communi- cations of the ACM , vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 103–111, 1990

work page 1990

[10] [10]

Mizan: a system for dynamic load balancing in large-scale graph processing,

Z. Khayyat, K. Awara, A. Alonazi, H. Jamjoom, D. Williams, and P. Kalnis, “Mizan: a system for dynamic load balancing in large-scale graph processing,” in Proceedings of the 8th ACM European Conference on Computer Systems . ACM, 2013, pp. 169–182

work page 2013

[11] [11]

Stratus: A distributed computing framework for scientiﬁc simulations on the cloud,

P. Jakovits, S. N. Srirama, and I. Kromonov, “Stratus: A distributed computing framework for scientiﬁc simulations on the cloud,” in 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communication & 2012 IEEE 9th International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems . IEEE, 2012, pp. 1053–1059

work page 2012

[12] [12]

Fast join and synchronization schema in the ieee 802.15. 4e mac,

E. V ogli, G. Ribezzo, L. A. Grieco, and G. Boggia, “Fast join and synchronization schema in the ieee 802.15. 4e mac,” in 2015 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WC- NCW). IEEE, 2015, pp. 85–90

work page 2015

[13] [13]

Time-slotted round-trip carrier synchroniza- tion,

I. Ozil and D. R. Brown, “Time-slotted round-trip carrier synchroniza- tion,” in 2007 Conference Record of the Forty-First Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers . IEEE, 2007, pp. 1781–1785

work page 2007

[14] [14]

The design and implementation of mina-based smart home data synchronization system,

F. Liu and W. Guo, “The design and implementation of mina-based smart home data synchronization system,” in 2015 Fifth International Confer- ence on Instrumentation and Measurement, Computer, Communication and Control (IMCCC) , Sept 2015, pp. 1612–1616

work page 2015

[15] [15]

The use of drones in air cargo transportation,

H. Chalupn ´ıˇckov´a, P. Bahensk`y, V . S`ykora, and D. Heralov´a, “The use of drones in air cargo transportation,” Economy & Society & Environment , vol. 4509, pp. 1–6, 2014

work page 2014

[16] [16]

Autonomous and automated and connected cars-oh my: ﬁrst generation autonomous cars in the legal ecosystem,

D. J. Glancy, “Autonomous and automated and connected cars-oh my: ﬁrst generation autonomous cars in the legal ecosystem,” Minn. JL Sci. & Tech., vol. 16, p. 619, 2015

work page 2015

[17] [17]

Intelligent car control for a smart car,

M. N. Hasan, S. Didar-Al-Alam, and S. R. Huq, “Intelligent car control for a smart car,”International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 15–19, 2011

work page 2011

[18] [18]

Time-triggered ethernet and ieee 1588 clock synchronization,

A. Ademaj and H. Kopetz, “Time-triggered ethernet and ieee 1588 clock synchronization,” in Precision Clock Synchronization for Measurement, Control and Communication, 2007. ISPCS 2007. IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 2007, pp. 41–43

work page 2007

[19] [19]

A review of research in multi-robot sys- tems,

A. Gautam and S. Mohan, “A review of research in multi-robot sys- tems,” in Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS), 2012 7th IEEE International Conference on . IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–5

work page 2012

[20] [20]

Software-deﬁned networking: A comprehensive survey,

D. Kreutz, F. M. Ramos, P. E. Verissimo, C. E. Rothenberg, S. Azodol- molky, and S. Uhlig, “Software-deﬁned networking: A comprehensive survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 14–76, 2015

work page 2015

[21] [21]

Actively measuring personal cloud storage,

R. Gracia-Tinedo, M. S. Artigas, A. Moreno-Martinez, C. Cotes, and P. G. Lopez, “Actively measuring personal cloud storage,” in Cloud Computing (CLOUD), 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on . IEEE, 2013, pp. 301–308

work page 2013

[22] [22]

Towards mobility-based clustering,

S. Liu, Y . Liu, L. M. Ni, J. Fan, and M. Li, “Towards mobility-based clustering,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . ACM, 2010, pp. 919–928

work page 2010

[23] [23]

A scalable synchronization protocol for large scale sensor networks and its applications,

Y .-W. Hong and A. Scaglione, “A scalable synchronization protocol for large scale sensor networks and its applications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1085–1099, 2005

work page 2005

[24] [24]

Self-synchronization in duty- cycled internet of things (iot) applications,

P. Yadav, J. A. McCann, and T. Pereira, “Self-synchronization in duty- cycled internet of things (iot) applications,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 2058–2069, 2017

work page 2058

[25] [25]

Fireﬂy-inspired heartbeat synchronization in overlay networks,

O. Babaoglu, T. Binci, M. Jelasity, and A. Montresor, “Fireﬂy-inspired heartbeat synchronization in overlay networks,” in Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems, 2007. SASO’07. First International Conference on. IEEE, 2007, pp. 77–86

work page 2007

[26] [26]

Synchronization of distributed systems,

A. Vrancic, “Synchronization of distributed systems,” Sep. 26 2006, uS Patent 7,114,091

work page 2006

[27] [27]

Temperature-resilient time synchronization for the internet of things,

A. Elsts, X. Fafoutis, S. Duquennoy, G. Oikonomou, R. J. Piechocki, and I. Craddock, “Temperature-resilient time synchronization for the internet of things,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , 2017

work page 2017

[28] [28]

Multiprocessor synchronization and hierarchical scheduling,

F. Nemati, M. Behnam, and T. Nolte, “Multiprocessor synchronization and hierarchical scheduling,” in Parallel Processing Workshops, 2009. ICPPW’09. International Conference on . IEEE, 2009, pp. 58–64

work page 2009

[29] [29]

A scheduling algorithm for synchroniza- tion task in embedded multicore systems,

S. Zeng, B. He, and J. Jiang, “A scheduling algorithm for synchroniza- tion task in embedded multicore systems,” Journal of Computational Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 8531–8541, 2014

work page 2014

[30] [30]

Coordinated task scheduling, allocation and synchronization on multiprocessors,

K. Lakshmanan, D. de Niz, and R. Rajkumar, “Coordinated task scheduling, allocation and synchronization on multiprocessors,” in Real- Time Systems Symposium, 2009, RTSS 2009. 30th IEEE . IEEE, 2009, pp. 469–478

work page 2009

[31] [31]

Gang scheduling with memory considera- tions,

A. Batat and D. G. Feitelson, “Gang scheduling with memory considera- tions,” in Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, 2000. IPDPS

work page 2000

[32] [32]

14th International

Proceedings. 14th International . IEEE, 2000, pp. 109–114. Richard Olaniyan is a PhD student in the School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, Canada being sponsored by the Presidential Scholar- ship Scheme of the Nigerian Government/Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) Nigeria. He received his MSc degree in Computer Science at the U...

work page 2000

[33] [33]

His research interests include synchronization and scheduling in clouds, clusters, fog computing, edge computing, vehicular clouds and computing models

He Received his BSc degree in Computer Engineering from Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile- Ife, Nigeria in 2011, where he graduated as the best student in the department bagging two awards. His research interests include synchronization and scheduling in clouds, clusters, fog computing, edge computing, vehicular clouds and computing models. Muthucumaru Mahe...

work page 2011