Advertisement

Deploying Large-Scale Online Labs with Smart Devices

  • Christophe Salzmann
  • Wissam Halimi
  • Denis Gillet
  • Sten Govaerts
Chapter

Abstract

Deploying remote laboratories at a very large scale is one of the upcoming challenges in remote experimentation. It is referred to as Massive Open Online Labs (MOOLs). Being able to sustain a massive number of users accessing a specific resource concurrently is a complex task. The challenge is to maximize the use of the shared resource (the online lab) while minimizing or even canceling the waiting time to access the online lab such that the user feels it is dedicated to him/her. Tackling this problem requires revisiting both the pedagogical and the technical methodologies of online lab implementation, sharing, and deployment. In this chapter, we use indifferently online labs or remote labs to refer to physical labs accessible at distance through the Internet. A remote lab can also be considered as a cyber-physical system (CPS) as a combination of sensors, actuators, and embedded intelligence to fulfill given operational objectives.

Remote experimentation is becoming a mature technology, and it is usual to see institutions or platforms offering a significant number of remote labs. The model often chosen to enable online access to these labs is Laboratory as a Service (LaaS), where the lab is seen as a set of resources that the user can select on demand. The Smart Device model follows to the LaaS scheme and tries to describe the physical lab equipment and its digital components and interfaces as a unique entity. The Smart Device is seen through a set of services that the user can connect to. There is an ongoing effort to standardize the relationship between all the components (software, hardware, and learning environments). The aim of this standard is to ease the design, the implementation, and the usage of pedagogically oriented online laboratories as smart learning objects and their integration in learning environments and learning object repositories. The initial Smart Device model has been enriched to provide remote application developers a set of noteworthy configurations since not all combinations of sensors, actuators, and services are meaningful.

The Smart Device and other LaaS models are the cornerstone for deploying Massive Open Online Labs (MOOLs), but alone, they just provide a one-to-one (1:1) access: one user accesses one real equipment at a time. Various solutions such as efficient time-sharing and resource duplication are proposed to increase the numbers of concurrent users, and a ratio of 5–10:1 is possible. The next step is to be able to handle the massive access, in the range of 50–100:1. Accommodating such a large number of concurrent users to access a real critical resource is a challenge that can be addressed by first giving priority to some users, for example, using gamification mechanisms. The analysis of the online usage pattern also permits a real-time adaptation of the various session parameters and session ordering. Lastly providing usage awareness is a key to help users select the best experimentation time.

This paper first provides some historical perspective and rationale to introduce the Smart Device model and its recent modifications toward completeness. Then, it proposes the required modifications in both the pedagogical and technical aspects to “traditional” remote lab in order to support the massive aspect of MOOCs. The MOOC and MOOL infrastructures are then described, especially how a Smart Device client application is integrated in a MOOC as an LTI module and how this application is able to interact with other applications or tools such as simulations.

This paper focuses on technical aspects, currently deployed, to implement such a remote lab within a MOOC infrastructure. It first covers the Smart Device specifications and its latest extensions. Then, the technical aspects such as the Smart Device implementation (server side) and the HTML5 client application are described. The components used for the deployment such as the LTI interface, the user storage, and other interactive tools are presented. The load balancer and the methods used to control the access are then depicted.

This paper provides a learning scenario for a MOOC session using the above elements, and an example is given with the control system lab deployed in edX, where more than 200 students access concurrently a farm of 30 electrical drives.

Keywords

Smart Device Massive Open Online Lab (MOOL) Laboratory as a Service (LaaS) Massive open online course (MOOC) Cyber-physical systems Remote experimentation Standardization edX LTI component WebSockets 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support provided by EPFL for the development of the control system MOOC described in this paper. The Smart Device specifications were partially developed in the context of Go-Lab (grant no. 317601) project under the ICT theme of the Seventh Framework Programme for R&D (FP7). We would like to thank Anjo Anjewierden, Lars Bollen, August’ın Caminero, Manuel Castro, German Carro, Gabriel D’ıaz, Danilo Garbi Zutin, Miguel Latorre, Irene Lequerica Zorrozua, Pablo Ordun˜a, Yves Piguet, Antonio Robles, Miguel Rodriguez-Artacho, Hamadou Saliah-Hassane, Elio San Cr’ıstobal, and Simon Schwantzer (in alphabetical order) for their input during the numerous discussions leading to the presented specifications.

References

  1. Auer, M., Pester, A., Ursutiu, D., & Samoila, C. (2003). Distributed virtual and remote labs in engineering, In Industrial Technology, 2003 IEEE International Conference on, vol. 2, (pp. 1208–1213).Google Scholar
  2. Cascado, D. et al. (2011). Standards and implementation of pervasive computing applications (pp. 135–158). Hoboken: WileyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, X., Song, G., & Zhang, Y. (2010). Virtual and remote laboratory development. A Review, Proceedings of Earth and Space 2010, 1(1), 3843–3852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Jong, T., Sotirou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in stem education: The go-lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3. Retrieved from: http://www.slejournal.com/content/1/1/3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freed, N., Baker, M., & Hoehrmann, B. (2014). Media types, Technical Report, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ media- types/media- types.xhtml
  6. Furht, B. (1995). A survey of multimedia compression techniques and standards. Part i: JPEG standard. Real-Time Imaging, 1(1), 49–67. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1077201485710054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillet, D., de Jong, T., Sotirou, S., & Salzmann, C. (2013). Personalised learning spaces and federated online labs for STEM education at school: Supporting teacher communities and inquiry learning. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), (pp. 769–773).Google Scholar
  8. Govaerts, S. et al. (2013). Towards an online lab portal for inquiry-based stem learning at school. In Advances in web-based learning ICWL 2013, ser. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8167, pp. 244–253). Springer: Berlin/HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hadley, M. J. (2009). Web application description language (WADL), Sun Microsystems Inc., Technical Report,. Retrieved from: http://java.net/projects/wadl/sources/svn/content/trunk/www/wadl20090202.pdf
  10. Halimi, W., Salzmann, C., Jamkojian, H., & Gillet, D. (2017). Enabling the auto generation of user interfaces for remote laboratories. 14th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), New York, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) status code registry (RFC7231). (2014). IETF, Technical Report Retrieved from: http://www.iana.org/ assignments/http-status- codes/http-status- codes.xhtml.
  12. IEEE. (2007). IEEE standard for a smart transducer interface for sensors and actuators wireless communication protocols and transducer electronic data sheet (TEDS) formats, IEEE Std 1451.5–2007, 10 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Loreto, S., Saint-Andre, P., Salsano, S., & Wilkins, G. (2011). Known issues and best practices for the use of long polling and streaming in bidirectional HTTP, RFC 6202, Internet Engineering Task Force, Apr. 2011. Retrieved from: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6202.txt
  14. Lowe, D., (2014). MOOLs: Massive open online laboratories: An analysis of scale and feasibility. REV2014: 11th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation. Piscataway: (IEEE) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
  15. Marum, M. (2013).Opensocial 2.5.1 specification. Retrieved from: https://github.com/OpenSocial/spec
  16. Orduna, P. et al. (2014). Generic integration of remote laboratories in public learning tools: organizational and technical challenges. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2014 Frontiers in Education Conference, October 2014.Google Scholar
  17. Salzmann, C., & Gillet, D. (2008). From online experiments to smart devices. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 4(SPECIAL ISSUE: REV 2008), 50–54.Google Scholar
  18. Salzmann, C., & Gillet, D. (2011). Remote labs and social media: Agile aggregation and exploitation in higher engineering education. IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering, 2011, 307–311.Google Scholar
  19. Salzmann, C., & Gillet, D. (2013). Smart device paradigm standardization for online labs. IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering, 2013, 1217–1221.Google Scholar
  20. Salzmann, C., Gillet, D., & Piguet. Y. (2016). MOOLs for MOOCs: A first edX scalable implementation. 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  21. Swagger RESTful API specification. (2014). Retrieved from: https://github.com/wordnik/swagger-spec/blob/master/versions/1.2.md
  22. Sysquake. (2017). Is a product of Calerga, www.calerga.com
  23. Tawfik, M., et al. (2014). Laboratory as a Service (LaaS): A novel paradigm for developing and implementing modular remote laboratories. International Journal of Online Engineering, 10(4), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taylor, B. N., & Thompson, A. (2008). The international system of units (SI), National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 330.Google Scholar
  25. Thompson, C. W. (2005). Smart devices and soft controllers. IEEE Internet Computing, 9(1), 82–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. WebSocket specification. (2011). rfc6455, Retrieved from: http://tools.ietf.org/ html/rfc6455

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christophe Salzmann
    • 1
  • Wissam Halimi
    • 1
  • Denis Gillet
    • 1
  • Sten Govaerts
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFLLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations