## 5 Performance Evaluation
### Technical Performance  
To measure the technical performance, we developed a prototype to experimentally observe the system's performance. The following devices were used for the experimental setup.  
In the simulation environment, RFID readers with two cards were placed. The reader was connected to the device layer. In the fog layer, the readings were displayed on a display screen. When an RFID card is brought closer to the reader, it is read and attendance is sent to the server. The simulation result shows that it takes 2 ms to communicate the RFID reading with the liquid crystal display (LCD) placed on the fog layer. The results are shown in Table 3.  
Figure 4: Experimental setup for SIF evaluation.  
The SFID is used to read the intensity of sounds. It reads the environment sounds and displays the results on the server. Limits are applied to sound intensity; when the noise increases to a certain level, the head office is notified. The experimental result shows that it took 2.19 ms to communicate the SFID reading to the fog layer. The results are shown in Table 4.  
When a child enters the school, RFID detects the ID, and a message is sent to the parents, such as \"Your child safely reached school\". When the same student leaves the school gate, a message is sent to the parents, such as \"Your child has left for home\". The experimental results show that the cellular network took 500 ms to deliver the message to the parent's device. The results are shown in Table 5.  
As discussed in the methodology, the proposed framework runs on three technical layers. This experimentation discusses the transfer of data from the IoT device layer to the fog layer. The results show that data are successfully transferred to the cloud. It took 3 ms to deliver the smartphone's communication to the fog layer. The results are shown in Table 6. Similarly, Table 6 shows the data updating on cloud servers.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Test** & **Checking the Performance of the SFD System** \\ \hline Source Device & Sound frequency detector \\ Target Device & Server and LCD \\ Expected results & Sending notification \\ Status & Successful \\ Response time & 0.01 ms \\ Avg execution time & 2.19 ms \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Checking the performance of the SFD system.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Test** & **Checking the Performance of the RFID System** \\ \hline Source Device & RFID Reader and Card \\ Target Device & Server and LCD \\ Expected results & Updating database \\ Status & Successful \\ Response time & 0.01 ms \\ Avg execution time & 2.00 ms \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Evaluating the performance of the RFID system.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Test** & **Delivery of Message on Cellular Network** \\ \hline Source Device & RFID Reader and Card \\ Target Device & Mobile phone \\ Expected results & Delivery of message \\ Status & Successful \\ Response time & 0.01 ms \\ Avg execution time & 500 ms \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Delivery of the message on the cellular network.  
Similar to the fog layer, this experiment examines the transmission of data from the IoT devices to the cloud layer. The outcome indicates that the data transfer to the cloud was successful. Smartphone communication reached the cloud layer in 500 ms. The outcomes are displayed in Table 7.  
Table 8 shows the protocols used by devices during transmission. To measure the latency of the data transmission, we employed the ping command. The camera used internet control management protocol (ICMP); the laptop used ICMP and address resolution protocol (ARP); the servers used IoT, ICMP, and spanning tree protocol (STP); the smart board used IoT, ICMP, and STP, and the cellular networks used IoT, ICMP, and STP.