A Novel Fault-Tolerant Approach for Dynamic Redundant Path Selection Service Migration in Vehicular Edge Computing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the subject of the manuscript is worthy of investigation and is appropriate for the journal. The authors propose fault-tolerant service migration method (DRPS) for service migration in the Vehicular Edge Computing environment. The proposed method combines the replication and resubmission strategies in the process of service migration to ensure the migration efficiency.

However, revealed mistakes do not allow a presentation of the manuscript in its current form. In this regard, I recommend that the authors revise the manuscript in response to the comments presented in attachments.

Author Response

Dear reviewer #1

We would like to thank the reviewers’ valuable comments. According to these constructive comments, we have revised our manuscript carefully. Here are the details in response to each comment below. In addition, the separate manuscript with all revisions highlighted has also been submitted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There are clear weaknesses in the paper that the authors must particularly pay attention to and handle:

·       The abstract must summarize the performance evaluation results.

·       The related work papers are not up to date in the domain where a lot of recent research papers are recent. In addition, the review for most of the cited work is nebulous. The review failed to summarize critical details about each of the cited research studies and their relevant pros and cons. Further, there is no comparison with the work in this article.

·       Enhance the visual quality of the figures where the overall quality is not good.

·       The authors should analyze the time complexity of the proposed algorithms (algorithms 1 and 2) in detail.

·       The results should be further analyzed; more details and further discussion of the simulation results are needed.

·       Many of the writings are too general and lack specific detail. The paper should provide more useful information about the quantitative gain from data in the concerned field. Some parts of the text look a bit redundant or out of focus. The text contains several expressions that are not well defined. I think the paper is not providing a good integral view.

·       The list of references should be reformatted and checked again to match the journal requirement where different styles and types are used. Please check some spelling and typos.

 

·       A thorough proofreading is required (best by a native English speaker). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2

We would like to thank the reviewers’ valuable comments. According to these constructive comments, we have revised our manuscript carefully. Here are the details in response to each comment below. In addition, the separate manuscript with all revisions highlighted has also been submitted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of the comments were answered by the authors in author_response.pdf document not in manuscript. The authors did not provide all these answers in the manuscript itself. Most of the remarks and comments have not been corrected in the manuscript. Not only me, as a reviewer, need the answers. The answers to my questions and comments should have reflected in the manuscript.

In their response, the authors showed that the questions and comments of the reviewer were caused by misunderstanding on his part, and not by omissions when writing the manuscript. Therefore, the authors made minimal amendments to the manuscript and wrote many explanations to the reviewer himself. In fact, these questions and remarks remained unanswered in the manuscript and will arise again from other readers.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors thank the reviewers for their constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript to add author responses to review comments, allowing readers to better understand the paper. To enhance the readability of the article, we split Algorithm 2 "Service Migration Algorithm" into two parts, Algorithm 2 "Service Migration Algorithm" and Algorithm 3 "Service Migration Time" in the revised manuscript. The modified Algorithm 2 mainly describes the parallel migration part of the DRPS algorithm, and Algorithm 3 describes the migration process and migration time of tasks in each migration path. We have also added several new references to enrich the article.

Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to most comments in the response file, not in the manuscript. However, the response to the comments must be reflected in the revised manuscript. Therefore, the authors should adhere to revising the manuscript according to my previous comments.

 

Additionally, the literature review is insufficient; more literature review is needed. Moreover, the authors claim that the related work section has been rewritten, which is still the same as the old submission.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

The authors are very grateful to the reviewers for their comments. We present an analysis of the proposed algorithm complexity and a more detailed discussion of the simulation results in the revised manuscript. Some pictures have been modified and explained to enhance the overall visual quality of the quota. We have added nine up-to-date references to the revised manuscript to enhance the literature review section of the paper. Finally, we carefully revised the format of the references to match the publication format of the journal. 

sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The changes that have been made are superficial even after two tries.

Still, where is the DRPS algorithm? The authors present Path Selection Algorithm (No 1), Service Migration Algorithm (No 2) and Algorithm No3. What is DRPS? Is this a solution or an algorithm or a scheme or an approach? Please do not use all terms at once.
Please correct at least this one remark.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors are very grateful to the reviewers for their constructive comments. DRPS is an approach consisting of Algorithm 1, Algorithm 2 and Algorithm 3. We have also made this explicit in our updated manuscript and have harmonized the terminology of DRPS.

 

sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Since the previous version, the authors have done huge work, and the paper is much better. This version looks good. Therefore, I suggest accepting this paper after the minor:

· The list of references still needs to be reformatted and checked again where different fonts are used. In addition, I recommend the authors to read and cite the following paper, which is recently done and will be helpful to the revision of this paper:

 1. "A Mobility-Aware and Fault-Tolerant Service Offloading Method in Mobile Edge Computing.", 2022.

2.  "Resource utilization and cost optimization-oriented container placement for edge computing in industrial internet.", 2022.

3. "Advanced deep learning-based computational offloading for multilevel vehicular edge-cloud computing networks." 2020.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

The authors are very grateful to the reviewers for their professional advice. These three papers are indeed of great help to our research work, and we have cited these three papers in the revised manuscript to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf