1 resultado para Wine and wine making
em Academic Archive On-line (Mid Sweden University
Filtro por publicador
- Repository Napier (2)
- Aberdeen University (4)
- Abertay Research Collections - Abertay University’s repository (1)
- Aberystwyth University Repository - Reino Unido (1)
- Academic Archive On-line (Jönköping University; Sweden) (3)
- Academic Archive On-line (Mid Sweden University; Sweden) (1)
- Academic Research Repository at Institute of Developing Economies (1)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (5)
- Aquatic Commons (5)
- ArchiMeD - Elektronische Publikationen der Universität Mainz - Alemanha (1)
- Archive of European Integration (11)
- Aston University Research Archive (34)
- B-Digital - Universidade Fernando Pessoa - Portugal (1)
- Biblioteca Digital | Sistema Integrado de Documentación | UNCuyo - UNCUYO. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CUYO. (3)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (6)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (3)
- Bioline International (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (38)
- Boston University Digital Common (1)
- Brock University, Canada (31)
- Brunel University (1)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (4)
- Bulgarian Digital Mathematics Library at IMI-BAS (3)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (4)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (34)
- Central European University - Research Support Scheme (2)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (4)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (1)
- Coffee Science - Universidade Federal de Lavras (2)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (6)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (6)
- Corvinus Research Archive - The institutional repository for the Corvinus University of Budapest (8)
- CUNY Academic Works (1)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (3)
- Digital Archives@Colby (1)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (4)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (25)
- Digital Peer Publishing (1)
- DigitalCommons - The University of Maine Research (1)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (4)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (5)
- Duke University (8)
- Ecology and Society (2)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (3)
- Escola Superior de Educação de Paula Frassinetti (1)
- FUNDAJ - Fundação Joaquim Nabuco (1)
- Glasgow Theses Service (3)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (8)
- Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository (1)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (3)
- Institutional Repository of Leibniz University Hannover (1)
- Instituto Politécnico de Viseu (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (3)
- Línguas & Letras - Unoeste (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (9)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (1)
- Plymouth Marine Science Electronic Archive (PlyMSEA) (3)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (3)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (2)
- QSpace: Queen's University - Canada (3)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (52)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (162)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (3)
- Repositório Digital da UNIVERSIDADE DA MADEIRA - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (2)
- Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Málaga (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (21)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (2)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (1)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (2)
- South Carolina State Documents Depository (1)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (2)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (15)
- Universidade de Lisboa - Repositório Aberto (2)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (3)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (1)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (1)
- Université de Montréal (1)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (3)
- University of Canberra Research Repository - Australia (1)
- University of Connecticut - USA (3)
- University of Michigan (143)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (14)
- University of Southampton, United Kingdom (1)
- University of Washington (3)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (9)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (4)
Resumo:
With the development of the Internet-of-Things, more and more IoT platforms come up with different structures and characteristics. Making balance of their advantages and disadvantages, we should choose the suitable platform in differ- ent scenarios. For this project, I make comparison of a cloud-based centralized platform, Microsoft Azure IoT hub and a fully distributed platform, Sensi- bleThings. Quantitative comparison is made for performance by 2 scenarios, messages sending speed adds up, devices lie in different location. General com- parison is made for security, utilization and the storage. Finally I draw the con- clusion that SensibleThings performs more stable when a lot of messages push- es to the platform. Microsoft Azure has better geographic expansion. For gener- al comparison, Microsoft Azure IoT hub has better security. The requirement of local device for Microsoft Azure IoT hub is lower than SensibleThings. The SensibleThings are open source and free while Microsoft Azure follow the con- cept “pay as you go” with many throttling limitations for different editions. Microsoft is more user-friendly.