Adaptive Microservice Architecture and Service Orchestration Considering Resource Balance to Support Multi-User Cloud VR

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file for the report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

I have uploaded the  response to the reviewer’s comments as a PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a novel approach to multi-user cloud VR (MCVR) by leveraging an adaptive microservice architecture (MSA) and service orchestration. The authors effectively address critical challenges in cloud-edge computing environments, particularly the Motion-To-Photon (MTP) latency threshold, network congestion, and resource balance. The study is well-motivated, methodically structured, and supported by extensive simulations. After reading this paper, I have the following comments:

Major Comments:

• The paper builds upon previous studies on MSA and cloud-edge orchestration, but it lacks a clear discussion on how the proposed method differs significantly from existing approaches.
• It would be beneficial to explicitly state what new aspects this study introduces compared to prior works on MSA-based VR service deployment.
• The algorithmic details are presented well, but some mathematical modeling or formalization (e.g., optimization functions, constraints) would improve the clarity and rigor of the proposed approach.
• The weight factor for resource balance (wrb) is adjusted heuristically; however, a theoretical justification for this adjustment is missing.
• While the paper discusses performance metrics under varying network conditions, there is no analysis of how the proposed method scales in a real-world deployment.
• How does the system perform under a highly dynamic multi-user VR setting where users frequently join and leave?
• The study compares the proposed method with existing techniques but does not include a baseline that does not use MSA (e.g., a monolithic service model).
• A discussion on the trade-offs between traditional monolithic approaches and the MSA model would be valuable.
• The simulation-based evaluation is robust, but no real-world implementation or prototype testing is included.
• Would it be feasible to test the proposed system on actual VR hardware with edge devices? Some discussion on real-world applicability would strengthen the impact of the research.

Minor Comments:

• Some sentences are complex and difficult to follow. A thorough proofreading is recommended for grammatical and structural clarity.
• Example: "Reducing the average network distance between each user and the rendering server is a reasonable approach, but the computing power and available resources of edge networks are not at high levels."
• Suggested revision: "Reducing the average network distance between users and the rendering server is beneficial, but edge networks often have limited computing power and resources."
• Figures explaining the proposed architecture (such as Figures 2 and 5) could benefit from clearer labeling and descriptions.
• A flowchart summarizing the service orchestration process would help readers grasp the approach more effectively.
• Some citations (e.g., [24], [25], etc.) need better integration into the discussion to strengthen arguments rather than being mentioned passively.
• Ensure consistent citation formatting per journal guidelines.
• The computational complexity of the proposed service orchestration algorithm is not explicitly mentioned.
• Providing a complexity analysis (e.g., time and space complexity) would add credibility to the approach.
• The discussion on edge device constraints (e.g., memory, GPU availability) is general. A more detailed breakdown of real-world limitations and possible mitigation strategies would enhance the paper’s practical relevance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

I have uploaded the  response to the reviewer’s comments as a PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Cloud VR is of great significance in the field of virtual reality. Many studies have been carried out around this issue and have achieved remarkable results. This paper proposes an adaptive MSA to solve the problem in MCVR. After carefully reviewing the paper, I think there are some problems in the writing and figure production of the paper, and it should also be compared with more SOTA methods. Here are some detailed suggestions:

1. Some figures in the paper have too much text. I think the text part can be reduced to make the figure more intuitive.
2. There are big problems with the layout of the figures and the text in the paper. Page 14 is all blank, and there are also a lot of blanks after the text in other places. In addition, some figures may not be clear enough.
3. The contribution section in section 1.2. I think the most important thing here is to introduce what innovation is used to solve what problem. Here I only see the emphasis on the problem and the solution ideas, and I don’t see the innovation of this paper clearly. Therefore, the author should describes the contribution of this paper in a clearer and more concise way.
4. The proposed method is relatively simple, there are few methods for comparing simulation results, and the compared methods are not SOTA methods. Many models are mentioned in the literature, and I think it is fair to compare with newer methods.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

I have uploaded the  response to the reviewer’s comments as a PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores a significant issue in the field of cloud VR, namely how to effectively support multi-user cloud VR applications in a cloud-edge continuum environment. The adaptive micro-service architecture and service orchestration method proposed in the manuscript demonstrate a certain level of innovation, and the simulation results also validate the effectiveness of the approach. However, the manuscript also has some shortcomings that require further improvement. For instance, Figure 7, which simulates various MCVR contents with different resource requirements, lacks detailed definitions of these different types of MCVR contents. Please provide further descriptions that can show more clear view to readers for the simulation of Figure 7.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

I have uploaded the  response to the reviewer’s comments as a PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good Job.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor issues.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. 
We have reviewed the manuscript again and more improved its overall readability across multiple pages throughout the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors  

This paper has improved after revision and is suitable for publication compared to the previous version.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. 
We have reviewed the manuscript again and more improved its overall readability across multiple pages throughout the text.