Talk:Fog computing

Fog Computing Definition
While looking at the "Definition of Fog Computing" section, I noticed that this is attributed to Prof. Jonathan Bar-Magen Numhauser. When checking that source, not only was it actually published in 2012 (as opposed to 2011 as stated in the section), the article seems to discuss an entirely different type of Fog computing I had never heard of. The professor talks about how Fog computing is a phenomenon occurring on the Web, used to describe the fogginess that is the result of people having many accounts on different sites. I do not believe this to be a relevant citation for the Fog Computing paradigm that is actually being discussed in the article. Actually, it seems that the Fog computing being discussed in this article is actually defined by Bonomi et al. Should this be changed or elaborated upon in the article? 192.38.90.52 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The Numhauser content on "Fogginess" (=inaccuracy) is Irrelevant
I agree with you: the Numhauser citations should be removed ("fogginess" has nothing to do with Fog Computing), and I am in the process of doing so. Fog computing, as defined by the OpenFog consortium, is intimately tied to Cloud Computing (Fog is at the edge of a cloud, hence the synonym "Edge Computing" - use the CPU power present in peripheral devices rather than delegating all processing to cloud servers. This reduces bandwidth requirements, and also reduces latency: in an Internet-of-Things scenario, the same devices that generate raw sensor data (e.g., power stations, automobiles) are likely to be the very same devices that need the processed output.

The concept of Fog Computing is, to some extent, rebottled old wine. In non-network scenarios, the use of special-purpose hardware such as signal-processing chips has long been used to perform processing that would otherwise have to be done on CPUs. The present-day emphasis on Graphical Processing Units extends this idea further. Prakash Nadkarni (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Fog vs. Edge
What's the difference between fog computing and edge computing?

vs.
 * Fog computing is defined in terms of distance from the Edge whereby Fog Computing occurs physically and functionally in the middle between Edge nodes which have input-output ability to sense or modify the physical world and large Data Centers as Centralized Clouds that occur further into the network which is usually the Internet.


 * Edge Computing architecturally is similarly defined at or near the Edge. Where difference may exist it is largely a matter of whether architectural issues are emphasized or particular functional aspects.

According to NIST Special Publication 500-325 Fog Computing Conceptual Model, Fog Computing recognizes at least three distinct zones treated as architectural zones or layers: Edge nodes aka Edge devices, near-to-Edge nodes called Mist, and further away elements of computation, storage and communication which make up the bulk of the Fog zone.

Often this arrangement may be motivated by network latency but that is only one of many possible reasons. Latency being critical or not follows from physical constraints of the application whether or not another input sample or an output must follow an given input within a bounded amount of time. From those time bounds comes the time criterially of "real time" and sensor sampling systems including video or audio data streams meant to match the physiological constraints of human perception. The basis for these constraints are defined by information sampling theory for the time criticality of inputs and outputs to approximate continuous analog values of physical variables as well as transfer functions in process control theory to time bound computational limits of process control systems.

More generally, the laws of the physical world are dominated by the principle of locality in which things nearby have greater influence than things further away. Mobility may also require division of architecture to accommodate "proximity as a service" in a manner natural to the application such as control of an autonomous vehicle. Advanced biological data transmission networks and processing systems exhibit similar structure such as the architecture of human peripheral nerves, spinal ganglia, and brain structures. These structures arise due to latency, reliability, data reduction and convenience of form following function. As rule of thumb such applications can be spotted by time being an explicit parameter or property in the domain of the problem definition to be solved.

The criteria for treating the designated zones in the Fog Computing Conceptual Model as layers is not provided beyond somewhat awkward mention of the three layers used for billing in centralized commercial Clouds which have much less applicability to real time and quai-real time applications outside of large data centers. Given the unsettled nature of the general acceptance of the terminology it is premature to draw a firm distinction between what is meant by Edge Computing versus Fog Computing. It may even appear that Fog Computing while a clever pun on the Cloud metaphor by in large is-a specialized view of Edge Computing. Edge is and always will be the literally definitive property.

Leaving the rest of editors to review but view it as largely obsolete---

So, what's the difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.213.3.4 (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It has been claimed that "In the past, ‘Fog Computing’ has been contrasted with ‘Edge Computing’ as two distinct concepts; the difference supposedly being that Fog required moving data from the actual end devices to some type of Fog node or gateway, while Edge involved incorporating the computing capabilities...into end devices themselves. The [OpenFog] Consortium, however, offers a more flexible view, which allows for positioning capabilities somewhere in the ‘continuum’ and ‘potentially right up to the IoT sensors and actuators’" (emphasis added).194.213.3.4 (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere it has been claimed: "Fog computing also is often erroneously called edge computing, but there are key differences. Fog works with the cloud, whereas edge is defined by the exclusion of cloud. Fog is hierarchical, where edge tends to be limited to a small number of layers. In additional to computation, fog also addresses networking, storage, control and acceleration."194.213.3.4 (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The above interesting content should influence the definitions in the article. The current content does not give enough reasons not to merge the two articles. That is, merge the "Fog" and the "Edge" articles, possibly into the "Edge" one.

foggy article
After reading the article I'm none the wiser as to how fog computing might work (I exaggerate maybe: I should have said instead that I'm only slightly the wiser through this process). The explanations start in the middle rather than at the beginning, and the article would benefit with attention from someone who is experienced at explaining things. --Brian Josephson (talk)


 * Fog computing is an emerging technology. Those that know how it might work are keeping that information as a closely guarded corporate secret.194.213.3.4 (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That crucial piece of information should certainly be included in the article ;-) --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that there's some unclear verbiage throughout the article. For example:
 * "Fog computing can be perceived both in large cloud systems and big data structures, making reference to the growing difficulties in accessing information objectively." (My emphasis; the entire sentence is problematic but particularly the last fragment. I simply cannot understand what it is we are trying to convey with this sentence, so I'm not really sure how to improve it.)
 * "one or more collaborative multitude of end-user clients" (I struck the word multitude; for one thing it should have been pluralized but the plural "clients" makes it redundant, anyway.)
 * The portion about the autonomous car.
 * -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.ijarbest.com/conference/spcl18/868. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent cite spam for doctoral thesis
This recent edit does not improve article sourcing and only serves to add a citation to a doctoral thesis that has not been peer-reviewed, published in an acknowledged journal or widely cited in other literature (afaik). The reference didn't even bother to provide a specific page number in the 200+ pages thesis. The phrasing "and that was reaffirmed ..." makes it very clear that the edit doesn't add anything substantially new to the article. => This is a clear violation of WP:SELFCITE, I have reverted the edit accordingly. Unless the likely author can provide a good rationale for inclusion and uninvolved editors agree, such likely self-citing references should be avoided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Omnicass (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)