Fig 1.
The field concept of Google BigTable.
Table 1.
An example of the Row Table.
Table 2.
An example of the Schema Table.
Fig 2.
Overall system architecture of our proposed DaaS.
Fig 3.
Overall system structure and components of our proposed DaaS.
Fig 4.
Demonstration of the Processor operation structural diagram when a client issues an Http request.
Fig 5.
Example of the XML format of the data received by our proposed system.
Fig 6.
Example of the system-stored physiological data format in XML.
Table 3.
XML tag and element definitions in our proposed system.
Fig 7.
File storage data format illustration.
Fig 8.
Result of ECG data stored as an XML file.
Fig 9.
ECG data results with null values stored as an XML file.
Fig 10.
Diagram illustrating the metadata database when a client issues an Http request.
Table 4.
Hardware and software environment configurations of the experiments.
Fig 11.
Test data I source format with continuous ECG data in XML.
Fig 12.
Test data II source format with temperature data in XML.
Fig 13.
MySQL database storage method I, storing values in different records.
Fig 14.
MySQL database storage method II storing 5 minutes of ECG data in a record.
Fig 15.
Performance results of InnoDB and MyISAM in the MySQL database for writing different sizes of data.
Fig 16.
Write performance of test data I for writing different sizes of data.
Fig 17.
Write performance of test data II for writing different sizes of data.
Fig 18.
Performance results of continuous reading test data I for different sizes of data.
Fig 19.
Result of reading a specific region of test data I for different sizes of data.
Fig 20.
Different numbers of users writing 5 minutes of test data I.
Fig 21.
Different numbers of users reading randomly reading 10 seconds of ECG data.
Table 5.
Initial disk usage of servers in the disk usage experiment.
Table 6.
Disk usage after server balancing in the disk usage experiment.
Fig 22.
Disk usage variation in each server for 1000 users.
Table 7.
Initial disk usage of servers in the disk loading experiment.
Table 8.
Disk usage after server balancing in the disk loading experiment.
Fig 23.
Disk usage variation with adding a new Server #2 with 0% disk load.
Table 9.
Initial state of each server for the CPU load balancing experiment.
Table 10.
Number of users in each server after load balancing experiment.
Fig 24.
Average CPU load of the servers after each test.
Fig 25.
Data size in the hard disk for different periods of data.
Fig 26.
XML storage format modification results.
Fig 27.
Storage size comparison after modification.