Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Abraham Mukosi Mukwevho

dblp:46/5631 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0001-6317-601XORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Cloud and datacenter computing · 56% Distributed systems · 44%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Distributed systems › fault tolerance
proactive fault tolerance
0.512021
Toward a Smart Cloud: A Review of Fault-Tolerance Methods in Cloud Systems · IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 2021
Cloud and datacenter computing
cloud service management
0.112021
Toward a Smart Cloud: A Review of Fault-Tolerance Methods in Cloud Systems · IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

machine learning · 0.5artificial intelligence · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Toward a Smart Cloud: A Review of Fault-Tolerance Methods in Cloud Systems
abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the state-of-the-art work on fault tolerance methods proposed for cloud computing. The survey classifies fault-tolerance methods into three categories: 1) ReActive Methods (RAMs); 2) PRoactive Methods (PRMs); and 3) ReSilient Methods (RSMs). RAMs allow the system to enter into a fault status and then try to recover the system. PRMs tend to prevent the system from entering a fault status by implementing mechanisms that enable them to avoid errors before they affect the system. On the other hand, recently emerging RSMs aim to minimize the amount of time it takes for a system to recover from a fault. Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence have played an active role in RSM domain in such a way that the recovery time is mapped to a function to be optimized (i.e., by converging the recovery time to a fraction of milliseconds). As the system learns to deal with new faults, the recovery time will become shorter. In addition, current issues and challenges in cloud fault tolerance are also discussed to identify promising areas for future research.
Abraham Mukosi Mukwevho, Turgay Çelik 0001
IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput.1