Distributed Fair Scheduling and Optimal Routing Protocols for Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks

8/6/2019 Distributed Fair Scheduling and Optimal Routing Protocols for Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks

1/37

Distributed Fair Scheduling andOptimal Routing Protocols for

Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks

- Niranjan RegatteAdvisor: Dr. Jagannathan Sarangapani


2/37

Ou tlineWireless ad hoc and sensor networksFair sched uling

Fairness iss uesAdaptive and Distrib uted Fair Sched uling (ADFS)

Analytical res ultsPerformance eval uationConcl usions

Routing protocolRelated Work O ptimized Energy-Delay Ro uting ( OEDR) protocolAnalytical res ultsSimulation res ultsConcl usions

Pu blicationsFuture work


3/37

Contrib utions

Fair Sched uling(ADFS)

Routing Protocol(OEDR)

Q oS


4/37

Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks

Source

Destination

Ad Hoc Networks Sensor Networks


5/37

Challenges in Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks

Bandwidth limitationsDistrib uted & cooperative

Channel contentionFairnessScalabilityEnergy limitationsProcessing power Storage capacity


6/37


7/37

Design Iss ues

Distrib uted ApproachSched uling algorithm sho uld be distrib utedCSMA/CA

Fairness CriteriaAllocation of Bandwidth proportional to the weights

is as close to 0 as possible

Efficiency of the protocol

Trade-off between thro ughp ut and fairnessScalabilityEffect on Q uality-of-Service (QoS)

m

m

f

f t t W t t W

J J ),(),( 2121


8/37

Related Work

WFQ, SCFQ, WF2Q, and SFQ Not efficient in wireless networks

Self-coordinating distrib uted fair q ueuing

Additional overhead to exchange flows information among neighborsDistrib uted Fair Sched uling

Performance degrades with mobility and channel variations

Large delay variations (Jitter)

Transmission control scheme for sensor networks Network state not considered and performance not demonstrated analytically

Existing algorithms do not adapt to changing network conditions


9/37

Adaptive and Distrib uted Fair Sched uling (ADFS)

Sched uling similar to Start-time Fair Q ueuing (SFQ)

Start-Tag: (1)

Finish-Tag: (2)

Packets are serviced in the increasing order of the starttags

_ a 1)())((ma)( 1 u! j p F p Av pS j f j f j f

1)()( u! jl

pS p F fj

fj j f

j f J


10/37

Adaptive and Distrib uted Fair Sched uling (ADFS)

Weights are u pdated d namicall as

ijijij E k k FJ EJ ! )()1(

w ere delayijqueueijij e

e E 1!a ][}{ FE

Bac - ff er a ca cu a e a

!

ij

ijij

l SF BI

J V **

w ere SF e ca fac r, V a ra m ar a e

Dy am c We ght A aptat

(3)

Back- ff I ter a

(4)


11/37

Fairness and Thro ughp ut Guarantee

The o em 1: For any interval t t in whi h lows f nd m b klogg ddur ing th nti re inter v l, th e di eren e in th e ser vi e rece ived by two lowst AD wi reless nod e is giv en s

l m

m

l f

f

l m

m

l f

f l l t t W t t W

,,,,

,,

J J J J e

(5)

The o em 2: If Q is th e set o f f lows s er ved by n AD nod e f ollowing C

ser vice mod el with p rameter s ))(,,( 21 P] P t t , and 21, , t t Qn

l n PJ e , th en f or allinter vals ? A

, t t in whi ch f low f is b acklogg ed th r oughout the inter val,),( 2 t t f is giv en as

max

21,

21

max

,12,21 ,,, f l f

Qn n

l f l f f l t t t t

l t t t t W u

P

P] J

PJ J (6)


12/37

Delay G uarantee

T heorem 3 : If t e et f f l er e y an D n e fo llowi ner ice od el wi t ara eter ))(,,( 21 P] P t t , and 21 , t t v RQn n Pe fo r all v ,

then the d epar ture tim e of packe t j f P at th e nod e, d eno ted by j f d P T , is giv en by

{e

f nQn

j f n

j f j

f a j

f d t t t t

l

t t l

P T P T 212121

max

, ,,,,

PP]

PPJ (7)

T heorem 4 : The end- to- end d elay d eno ted by j f EED P T , is giv en by

j

f prop

m

i j f

j f ia

j f id

j f EED P T P T P T P T ! ! 1 ,,, , J (8)

w here j f id P T , and j f j f ia P T ,, , J are the d epar ture tim e and expec ted arr iv al tim e of packe t j f P at h o p, i , in the m ulti- ho p netwo rk. propT is the to tal pr o pagatio n d elay exper ience d by th e packe t, f r om so urce to the d es tinatio n.


13/37

Performance Eval uation

Val ues of the parameters usedChannel bandwidth: 2 Mbps

Expected delay: 1.0 secExpected q ueue length: 10Sum of initial Weights: 1

is a random variable in the interval 0.9, 1.1Two-ray gro und propagation model with path-loss exponent of 4.0Routing protocol: A ODVCBR traffic with packet size of 5 4 bytes

9.0!E

1.0! F

02.0!SF

V


14/37


Fig.1. Performance of ADFS with 32 nodes Fig.2. Performance of ADFS with 128 nodes


15/37


Fig.3. Fairness index comparison

Fairness Index:

!

f f

f

f f

f

T n

T

F

2

2

* J

J


16/37


Fig.4. Performance eval uation with different flow rates Fig.5. Delay variations with 32 nodes


17/37


Fig.6. 32 nodes with mobilityand channel variations

Fig.7. 32 nodes with mobilityvarying node velocity

Shadowing is used with path loss exponent of 3.0, shadowing deviation of 2.0 (dB),and reference distance of 20 m.


18/37


19/37

Concl usions for ADFS Algorithm

Fair allocation of bandwidth10-20% increase in thro ughp ut

Minim um delay variationsBetter Q uality-of-Service


20/37

Routing Protocol

Existing protocols are based on n umber of hopsMinim um hops doesn't mean optimal QoS ro ute

Channel variations affect delays, energy and bit-error ratesConsideration for QoS in ro uting protocolProactive vs. Reactive protocols

d

a

b

c

e

f

k

l

m

n

i

j

gh


21/37

Related Work

Reactive protocolsAODV, DSR, T ORA, CEDAR

Proactive protocolsDSDV, STAR, OLSR

These protocols are based on n umber of hopsOLSR_R3 based on max bandwidth bottleneck

Increases end-to-end delayChannel conditions are not considered


22/37

O ptimized Energy-Delay Ro uting ( OEDR)

Distrib uted proactive ro uting protocolCost Parameters:

Delay To red uce the end-to-end delayEnergy Indicates the q uality of the comm unication link Available Energy To increase the lifetime of the nodes

Multipoint Relay (MPR) nodes

Red uce the overhead in forwardingMinimize the n umber of links to bedeclared for comp uting the ro utes

S


23/37


24/37

Multipoint Relay Selection

MPR nodes:Su bset of the one-hop neighbors

Reach all the two-hop neighbors with minim um cost

ost for selecting the one-hop neighbor n as MPR to reachthe two-hop neighbor n s " 1n " 2n ) is giv n by:

)/1(121121

nnnn s MPR

nn sE C C C ! 0)


25/37

MPR Selection Example

s)6.0(

3n

)25.0(4n

)8.0(5n

1 p

2 p

3 p4 p

5 p

6 p

7 p8 p

4 6

43

5

2

7

55

36

4

56 5

5

3

)5.0(1n

)2.0(2n

MPRss

1n 2n

3n

4n

5n

1 p

2 p

3 p4 p

5 p

6 p

7 p8 p

MPRs

Fig.10. Using OLSR protocol Fig.11. Using OEDR protocol

C - ig (Vi M ) i g (10)

p 2 p 3 p 4 p 5 p 6 p 7 p 8 p

OLSR 9 ( ) ( ) 5 ( 2 ) 6 ( 2 ) 3 ( 2 ) 8 ( 2 ) 5 ( 4 ) 6 ( 4 )

OEDR 9 ( ) ( ) 9 ( ) 6 ( 2 ) 3 ( 2 ) .67 ( 3 ) 9.6 7 ( 3 ) 0.25 ( 5 )


26/37

MPR and Energy-Delay Costs Declaration

MPR nodes transmit topology control (TC) messages periodicallyTC message contains:

MPR nodes selector setCosts of the links between MPR and its selectors

Topology table is used to record:Information abo ut the topology of the network Link costs, known from the TC messages


27/37

Routing Table Calc ulation

O ptimal ro utes are determined using a least-cost spanningtree algorithmRouting table is maintained to save ro utes information

Cost of the entire path between a so urce s and a destination d,is given by:

(11) ! d sd s k k k C C C C Cost ,,,,, ,,......,, 1211


28/37

RT Calc ulation Example

s

3n

4n5n

1 p

2 p

3 p4 p

5 p

6 p

7 p8 p

4 6

3

5

2

554

56

5

5

31n 2

n

s

3n

4n5n

1 p

2 p

3 p4 p

5 p

6 p

7 p8 p

1n 2n

6

4

6

6

4

5

2

5

5

5

5

3

7

Fig.12. Minim um hops pathusing OLSR protocol

Fig.13. Least-cost spanning treeusing OEDR protocol

22466638 ,

!! p pCo st 16344538 , !! p pCo st


29/37

O ptimality Analysis

T heore 1 The PR selection based on the energy-delay metric

and the available energy of the relay nodes will res ult in an optimal

route between any two-hop neighbors.

T heore 2 OEDR protocol res ults in an optimal ro ute (the path

with the minim um energy-delay cost) between any so urce-

destination pair.

T heore 3 For all pairs of nodes s and d , s generating and

transmitting a broadcast packet P , d receives a copy of P .


30/37


Val ues of the parameters used Number of nodes is 100Area is 2000x2000 m

Maxim um n umber of flows is 50Two-ray gro und propagation model with path-lossexponent of 4.0Sim ulation time is 100 secMAC protocol used is IEEE 802.11Initial energy of each node is 10 Jo ulesQueue limit is 50 packetsCBR traffic with packet size of 584 bytes and 41 kbps


31/37


Fig.14. Average delay vs. mobility Fig.15. Energy-delay vs. mobility


32/37


Fig.16. Average delay vs. n umber of nodes

Number of nodes varying between 20 - 200Shadowing is used with

Path loss exponent of 2.0Shadowing deviation of 4.0(dB)Reference distance of 10 m


33/37


Fig.17. Thro ughput vs. n umber of nodes Fig.18. Energy-delay vs. n umber of nodes


34/37

Concl usions for OEDR Protocol

Red uced end-to-end delaySmaller energy-per-packet and delay prod uct

Increase in lifetime of the nodesBetter thro ughp utBetter QoS


35/37

Pu blications

Adaptive and Distrib uted Fair Sched uling in Ad hoc Wireless Networks, Pr oc. of the 5th Wor l d W ire l ess Cong ress, WWC04, to appear, May 2004

A New Fair Sched uling MAC Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks, S en sor-Actuat or N etworks for Eng ineer ing , ES A04, to appear, J un 2004Adaptive and Distrib uted Fair Sched uling in Ad HocWireless Networks, W ire l ess N etworks Jo ur nal , under review, 2004 O ptimized Energy-Delay Ro uting in Ad Hoc Wireless

Networks


36/37


37/37

QU ES T IONS?

Documents

Distributed Fair Scheduling and Optimal Routing Protocols for Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks