Voting for Superior Services: How to Exploit Cloud Hierarchies

  • J.-Ch. GrégoireEmail author
  • Angèle M. Foley
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11819)


Cloud architecture spreads services throughout several levels from user-close edge to deep cloud, and while this allocation of resources offers versatility and power, it also presents a challenge: where should each aspect of the service be located? Related to this question is, who should decide? A user-centric approach would invite input from the user, and our model allows users to formulate preferences and submit these to the operator through a voting process wherein they express their preferences for the quality of the services they use. The outcome of the vote is a selection of services and related quality levels which receive preferential treatment.

This process is distinctive in that it operates with only partial information, which may be as much information that can be reasonably obtained. At the same time, it blends well with information that an operator can collect, statically or in realtime, for the user as well as from content and/or application providers.


Cloud infrastructures Voting Task offloading User experience Quality of perception Net neutrality 



This work was supported by the Canadian Tri-Council Research Support Fund. Authors were each supported by their own individual NSERC Discovery Grants.


  1. 1.
    Balinski, M., Laraki, R.: Majority Judgment: Measuring, Ranking, and Electing. MIT press, Cambridge (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brams, S.J., Fishburn, P.C.: Voting Procedures. Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare. vol. 1, pp. 173–236 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu, Y.C., Patel, M., Sabella, D., Sprecher, N., Young, V.: Mobile edge computing–a key technology towards 5G. ETSI White Paper 11(11), 1–16 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Islam, S., Grégoire, J.C.: Giving users an edge: a flexible cloud model and its application for multimedia. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 28(6), 823–832 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oteafy, S.M., Hassanein, H.S.: IoT in the fog: a roadmap for data-centric IoT development. IEEE Commun. Mag. 56(3), 157–163 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peshkin, M.A., Colgate, J.E., Wannasuphoprasit, W., Moore, C.A., Gillespie, R.B., Akella, P.: Cobot architecture. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17(4), 377–390 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sodagar, I.: The MPEG-DASH standard for multimedia streaming over the internet. IEEE MultiMed. 18(4), 62–67 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vakali, A., Pallis, G.: Content delivery networks: status and trends. IEEE Internet Comput. 7(6), 68–74 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vakili, A., Grégoire, J.C.: QoE management for video conferencing applications. Comput. Netw. 57(7), 1726–1738 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRS-EMTMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations