1 / 22

Structure-free Data Aggregation

Structure-free Data Aggregation. Kaiwei Fan, Sha Liu, and Prasun Sinha (speaker) The Ohio State University Dept of Computer Science and Engineering. Outline. Introduction Structure-free Data Aggregation Simulation Results Experiments on a testbed Conclusion. Introduction. Data Aggregation

hasad
Download Presentation

Structure-free Data Aggregation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Structure-freeData Aggregation Kaiwei Fan, Sha Liu, and Prasun Sinha (speaker)The Ohio State UniversityDept of Computer Science and Engineering

  2. Outline • Introduction • Structure-free Data Aggregation • Simulation Results • Experiments on a testbed • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Data Aggregation • In-network processing • Reduces communication cost • Approaches • Static Structure • [LEACH, TWC ’02] • [PEGASIS, TPDS ’02] • Dynamic Structure • [Directed Diffusion, Mobicom ‘00] • [DCTC, Infocom ‘04]

  4. Static Structure • Pros • Low maintenance cost • Good for unchanging traffic pattern • Cons • Unsuitable for event triggered network • Long link-stretch • Long delay sink

  5. Static Structure • Pros • Low maintenance cost • Good for unchanging traffic pattern • Cons • Unsuitable for event triggered network • Long link-stretch • Long delay sink

  6. Dynamic Structure • Pros • Reduces communication cost • Cons • High maintenance overhead sink

  7. Structure-free Data Aggregation • Challenge • Routing: who is the next hop? • Waiting: who should wait for whom? • Approach • Spatial Convergence • Temporal Convergence • Solution • Data Aware Anycast • Randomized Delay Routing? Waiting? sink

  8. Data Aware Anycast • Improve Spatial Convergence • Anycast • One-to-Any forwarding scheme • Anycast for Immediate Aggregation • To neighbor nodes having packets for aggregation • Keep Anycasting for Immediate Aggregation sink

  9. Data Aware Anycast 50 nodes in 200mx200m sink

  10. Data Aware Anycast • Forward to Sink • To neighbor nodes closer to the sink • Using Anycast for possible Immediate Aggregation sink

  11. Data Aware Anycast • Forwarding and CTS replying priority • Class A: Nodes for Immediate Aggregation • Class B: Nodes closer to the sink • Class C: Otherwise, do not reply mini-slot CTS slot Class A Class B Sender RTS Class A Nbr CTS Class A Nbr Canceled CTS Class B Nbr Canceled CTS Class C Nbr

  12. Randomized Waiting • Improve Temporal Convergence • Naive Waiting Approach • Use delay based on proximity to sink (closer to sink => higher delay) • Long delay for nodes close to the sink in case the event is near the sink • Our Approach: Random Delay at Sources

  13. Sink … … h=n/k Analysis • Y: Number of hops a packet is forwarded before being aggregated • Assumptions: • Each node has k choices for next hops closer to sink • All n nodes have packets to send • E[Y] = • x : random delay in [0,1] picked up by a node • dh :random delay chosen by a node h hops away from sink • Total Number of Transmissions =

  14. Analysis vs. Simulation • Results matches up to 40 hops • Gap increases as network size increases • Reason: transmission delay is ignored in analysis

  15. Evaluated Protocols Opportunistic (OP) Optimum Aggregation Tree (AT) Data Aware Anycast (DAA) Randomized Waiting (RW) DAA+RW Evaluated Metric Normalized Number of Transmissions Parameters Studied Maximum Delay Event Size Aggregation Function Network Size Simulation Results

  16. Simulation Results – Maximum delay • Configuration • 33 x 33 grid network • event moves at 10m/s • event radius: 200m • 140 nodes triggered by the event • data rate: 0.2 pkt/s • data payload: 50 bytes • AT-2: Aggregation tree approach with varying delay • DAA+RW improve OP by 70%

  17. AT is sensitive to delay AT has best performance with highest delay Simulation Results – Maximum delay

  18. Configuration event radius: 50m ~ 300m 8 ~ 260 nodes triggered by the event event radius: 200m Key Observations DAA+RW is much better than OP DAA+RW is close to AT (optimal tree) Simulation Results – Event Size

  19. Configuration Aggregation Ratio ρ:0 ~ 1 Packet size:max(50, 50* (1-ρ)* n) Max packet size:400 bytes Key Observation DAA+RW performs better than AT Following the best tree is not optimum if the packet size is limited Simulation Results – Aggregation Ratio

  20. event distance to the sink: 300m ~ 700m event radius: 200m Key Observation Improvement is higher for events farther from the sink Simulation Results – Network Size

  21. Linear network with 5 sources and 1 sink 0.2 pkt/s data payload: 29 bytes Key Observation Delay as low as 0.1 is sufficient for optimizing performance Experiment – Randomized Waiting

  22. Conclusion • Data Aware Anycast for Spatial Convergence • Randomized Waiting for Temporal Convergence • Efficient Aggregation without a Structure • High Aggregation • No maintenance overhead

More Related