Late submission penalties and rules will be applied in accordance with the QUB policy on    late submission. For more information on this or any other QUB policy with regards to assessment please see:

https://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/AcademicAffairs/Examination sandAssessment/MarkSchemesandClassifications/

If you have any questions about the assignment, please see the module organiser Esha    Barlaskar in the first instance or use any of the support options listed in this document.

1. Assessment Details

For this assessment you will be required to produce a technical report with a detailed comparison between two applications (which are provided), using graphs and visualisations to highlight the differences in resource utilisation, scalability, performance, cost, and futureproofing.

In this context a technical report is:

•   a textual piece of work containing technical details and facts about the topic in question

•   suitable for reading by someone with knowledge of computer science and basic knowledge of containerisation, regardless of deployment concept familiarity.

For example, you may consider this report to be the result of a Chief Technology Officer or  IT Manager asking you to carryout "A Comparative Study on Two Dockerised Applications" and report back:

•   Application 1: PHP Prime Number Application (Web Service), you can access this

application here:

https://repository.hal.davecutting.uk/root/php_prime_number_application/

•   Application 2: Python Fibonacci Application (not a Web Service), you can access this

application here:

https://repository.hal.davecutting.uk/root/python_fibonacci_application

Both the applications are dockerised.

The word limit for this report is 2,000 words though this should be seen as a limit only and generally reports of between 1,500 and 2,000 words should be acceptable. It’s likely that a very short report won’t be able to cover the topic to sufficient detail to score highly but

won’t be penalised specifically for length. However, including graphs, diagrams is an

important part of the analysis and willbe penalisedif not provided. Therefore, the inclusion of empirical data and visual representations will help you to score highly.

Although due to the nature of this assignment there will be variations across different

reports, the following key areas should be included in your report (some example questions  are provided as guidance and they’re just there as possible examples of minimum questions, you could include more questions if you wish to):

1.   Application Complexity and Resource Demand – specifically for the provided applications in question. For example:

•   Could you provide resource utilisation graphs comparing CPU and memory usage (during application execution) between the two applications?

•    Does the category of application (Application 1 being a web service application and Application 2 being a non-webservice application) contribute to the difference in

resource utilisation and computational complexity between the two applications? If it does, please highlight the reasons specific to the applications in question.

•   Generate graphs depicting the relationship between input parameters (e.g., prime number range or Fibonacci sequence length) and resource usage.

•    Make suggestions on how the resource utilisation can be optimised for the two applications using modern technologies/services.

2.   Scalability and Elasticity – specifically for the two applications in question, provide a    comprehensive comparative analysis, which may include graphs and empirical data, to address the following:

•   What strategies and resource allocation policies would you consider for dynamic

workload management for both the applications. Analyse how would Application 1  adapt to varying workloads compared to Application 2? Are there specific strengths or weaknesses in their abilities to handle fluctuations in workloads?

•   Could you create and present graphical representations that visually depict the

scalability of both applications? These graphs should serve as a means to showcase the respective efficiencies of Application 1 and Application 2 in handling increased  workloads, particularly during periods of high demand or extensive workloads.

3.   Containerisation Strategies vs. Traditional Deployment – specifically for the two applications provide a comprehensive analysis on the following:

•  When comparing containerisation strategies to traditional deployment, what are the notable architectural and performance differences? How do containerisation

platforms address advanced deployment needs compared to non-containerised environments?

•  Utilise architecture diagrams to visually represent the distinctions between

containerised and non-containerised deployments of the two applications in

question. For example, use diagrams illustrate the resource isolation within

containerised deployments, emphasising how containers separate processes and

dependencies, and also visualise how resources are shared among containers in the containerised deployment, contrasting it with how resources are managed in the non-containerised setup.

4.   Isolation and Compatibility Challenges in Containers –  specifically for the two applications provide a comprehensive analysis on the following:

•  What specific isolation benefits and compatibility challenges does containerisation offer when contrasted with non-containerised deployments in multi-tenant hostenvironments? How do containers address conflicts and dependencies?

•  Use diagrams to represent multi-cloud or hybrid cloud deployments and demonstrate redundancy strategies.

Please make sure you include these four sections in your report clearly marked (this is a technical report not an essay!). Failure to clearly structure your report may result in problems marking (leading to a loss of marks).

For a more detailed explanation of how each report will be marked please see the Assessment Criteria section of this document.

You will also need to prepare a brief (2 minute absolute max) video overview of the topic (as if you’d been asked to give a brief presentation to the board on the back of your report).

Format

Report can be generated in any word processor (such as Word or LaTeX) but must be

submitted as a .pdf file. The top of the file should clearly state (a) the topic, (b) your student number, (c) your name, and (d) the word count of the document.

Font size should be around 12 point.

Acknowledgement

In the report you need to provide some information as appropriate in the Appendix on how you came to certain answers or found information. This would include your use of AI tools   but also other third-party sources of information all of which are available to be used and     acknowledged in your work. Some examples would include answering questions like “what  enhancements and modifications did you implement in your analysis report beyond the

suggestions and guidance provided by ChatGPT/ any other third party sources? Could you    share specific examples for each of the tasks of how your creative input and expertise were integrated to improve the overall analysis?”

References

References are expected for all the facts and elements covered in the report. You can   choose a referencing format that you like (and use this consistently) but Author/Name (Harvard-style) is strongly recommended.

When citing sources, you must be clear to differentiate reliable source from opinion or fact.  You should also, ideally, aim to have a mixture of sources both peer-reviewed academic and public/corporate information in your report.

Some examples:

Saying: “X has the option to turn red (X Creator, 2020)” is fine, here we have a fact supported by a verifiable source (the manual or documentation for X).

Saying: “X is the best thing since the wheel (X Creator, 2020)” is not fine, here we have an opinion from a questionable source. “The creator of X says it’s the best thing since the

wheel (X Creator, 2020)” would be fine, as would referencing an independent academic

study: “In a systematic analysis of things-versus-wheels by the University of ThingWheel it was identified that X was the best thing since the wheel (McWheelface et al., 2019)” .

This is a semantic difference but an important one.

Another example perhaps Bobby Scienceman writes on his blog that the Earth is flat. We couldn’t cite that and say “the Earth is flat” but we could cite it as evidence that “some    people say the Earth is flat” .

Presentation

Should be a recording in any suitable video format. This can just be a video recording to a phone,a screen recording of powerpoint with commentary, or whatever you feel is the     most appropriate method.

2. Assessment Criteria

The following are the criteria against which your submission will be marked and their conceptual marking equivalents.

The assessment of the quality of the individual elements will be made, where applicable, in combination of both the written report and video presentation.

3. Feedback

Feedback in the form of marks will be provided as soon as practicable after submission with the expectation that marking will be complete (and marks provided) within two working

weeks.

Individual feedback will take the form of a numeric score against each of the assessment   criteria (there may be brief comments for these criteria if appropriate), a total made from these scores weighted by section, and an overall textual comment on the totality of the

report.

Generalised feedback will be provided to the class as a whole including overall trends and areas of particular concern.

Anyone wishing to discuss their marks in more detail are welcome to do sousing any of the support arrangements outlined in this document.

4. Submission

Submission instructions will be provided on Canvas.

Submission of the report will be a single file in PDF (.pdf) format.

Submission of the video will be a single file in a suitable video format (please do not upload massive video files, use sensible resolution!).