Edge Quality Rating Evaluation

[theodorelu27]

Implement Edge Quality Rating for the Client's Connection Evaluator

Components to be added to the Clients:

• Operator for EQR calculation
• Counter for current EQR score
• Configurable Latency Threshold and score reduction
• Include it as information to be sent to the Latency Reporter ( #97 )
• Implement the EQR as the evaluator in Master Communication Runner

Components to be added to the Server:

• Updater for Connected status

[theodorelu27]

@alyhasansakr I want to confirm the tasks for this issue before moving on, as I noticed there were some that I actually missed in the initial issue

Also, I want to confirm some things regarding the EQR:

• From what I understood in the design from your Thesis, EQR is assigned from the Master when a node is assigned to the Client, as such Client would receive a Max_EQR and sets its current_EQR to half of the maximum value
• EQR would decrease by a fixed amount x, when the latency passes latency_treshold z
• EQR would increase by a fixed amount y when a process is completed with latency bellow latency_treshold z
• As with the current system, the Client would still prioritize using Server when it is connected but the expectation is that when max_EQR is reached, only Edge Execution would be used
• EQR would be sent to matchmaker to evaluate connection history
• EQR value would be maintained and sent along with the latency report
• Client would maintain its own connected status but Server would maintain it based on input from Master
• When EQR reaches 0, matchmaker would assign a new Server node for the Client
• When EQR reaches 0, Client would disconnect (remove all information about Server and continue subsequent operation locally) and asks to be assigned a new node
• Value x, y, z should be configurable when starting the Client

[alyhasansakr]

@theodorelu27 yes, that is correct.

[theodorelu27]

@alyhasansakr got it, but as for the EQR, as currently, the value is not yet available, would I need to implement it myself in the matchmaker or should I just prepare the interface for now and use a default value when the EQR was not provided by the Master?

[alyhasansakr]

@theodorelu27 No, for now just use a default value, we will implement it later.

[theodorelu27]

Additions needed to be made

• add an "Evaluating" state
• separate runner for remote and local execution
• add Max_EQR as a parameter

[theodorelu27]

@alyhasansakr for the evaluation, since we're measuring end-to-end latency, in the case of the marker detection, would it be okay if I just draw the detected marker into a new file with a different name? (such as by adding "eval_" into the file name) or should I just skip marker drawing for evaluation?

[alyhasansakr]

@theodorelu27 just skip.