1 / 1

On the Feasibility of High-Power Radios in Sensor Networks

Low-power Radio. Low-power Radio. Low-power Radio. SRC. DEST. DEST. Low-power Radio. High-power Radio. High-power Radio. High-power Radio. Wakeup Msg. Wakeup Msg. Wakeup Msg. Idle State Power Levels. Communication Power Levels. SRC. 1600. 1000. 3500. 1400. 3000. Transmit.

joan-barr
Download Presentation

On the Feasibility of High-Power Radios in Sensor Networks

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. Low-power Radio Low-power Radio Low-power Radio SRC DEST DEST Low-power Radio High-power Radio High-power Radio High-power Radio Wakeup Msg Wakeup Msg Wakeup Msg Idle State Power Levels Communication Power Levels SRC 1600 1000 3500 1400 3000 Transmit 800 1200 2500 Receive High-power Radio 1000 Power (mW) Data Transmission 600 2000 Power (mW) 800 1500 400 600 1000 400 200 500 200 0 0 0 Mica2 Mote Cabletron Lucent MicaZ Mote Cabletron Lucent Mica2 Mote Micaz Mote High-power/ High Bandwidth Radios (e.g., 802.11) Idle State Energy Consumption Low-power/ Low Bandwidth Radios (e.g., CC2420) Ideal Radio Per-bit Energy Consumption Micaz Mica Mica2 On the Feasibility of High-Power Radios in Sensor Networks Cigdem Sengul, Mehedi Bakht, Albert F. Harris III, Tarek Abdelzaher, and Robin Kravets University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Energy-Efficient Selection of Radio(s) for Sensor Networks Communication Energy Consumption • Goals • Increase sensor network lifetime • Reduce overall energy consumption • Challenges • Evaluate energy/performance trade-offs for available radios • Manage selection of appropriate radio(s) in an energy-efficient manner • Maintain effective network performance (e.g., low delay) • Radio Energy Consumption • Idling costs • Energy consumed per unit time in the idle state • Communication costs • Energy consumed per transmitted bit Energy per transmitted bit (nJ) • Energy Per Transmitted Bit • High-power radios • Higher data rate • Shorter transmission time • Lower energy consumption for every bit transmitted Cabletron (2 Mbps) Micaz Mote Mica2 Mote Lucent (11 Mbps) (250 kbps) (38.4 kbps) • Comparison of Power Levels for Different Radios • Low-power/low-rate radios apparently fare better on both counts • Low idling cost • Low power level in the communication states Do lower power levels always mean less energyconsumption in total ? The Quest for the Ideal Radio Dual Radio Approach • Current Radio Selection • Approach • Choose a single radio that best suits the characteristics of sensor network • Trade-off • Sacrifice either low idling cost or low energy per bit • Main Idea – Get the best of both worlds! • Add a high-power radio to leverage its low per-bit transmission cost • Retain the existing low-power radio to utilize its low idling cost • Challenges of using a High-power Radio • High idle state overhead • Non-negligible state transition costs • Our Solution • Reduce idling energy consumption by switching off the high-power radio when not in use • Reduce per-bit transmission costs by transmitting data using the high-power/high-rate radio • Amortize transitions costs from OFF to ON by buffering data and sending in a large burst Low-power Radio • Determining Factor • Sensor nodes spend most of their time in the idle state • Solution • Select radios that minimize idle state energy consumption (i.e., low-power/ low-bandwidth radios like CC1000) High-power Radio But why should we be constrained by the limit of one radio? How many bytes do we need to buffer to achieve a net energy savings? When does it pay off to transmit with the high-power radio? What if we go over the break-even point? • Break-even Point • The minimum data size a high-power/high-rate radio needs to buffer so that energy can be saved in comparison to a low-power/low-rate radio • How to calculate the break-even point? • Find the cost of sending s bytes by the sensor radio Esr(s) • Find the cost of sending s bytes by the 802.11 radio E802.11(s) • The value of s, for which E802.11(s) = Esr(s) , is the break-even point • Can we go more than one-hop? • High-power radios have higher transmission range • Nodes that are multi-hops away through the sensor radio may be directly reachable through the 802.11 radio Transmit/Receive Power of the Sensor Radio Data Rate of the Sensor Radio Hop-distance in terms of sensor radio • Trade-offs of larger bursts • Lower energy • Higher delay • “Good” operating point • Save energy with 1 – 10 KB • Diminishing energy gains The energy cost of sending wake-up messages through the sensor radio The energy spent in waking up the sender and receiver 802.11 radios The energy consumed by the two 802.11 radios in idle state Find s for which, Multi-hop case Single-hop case 1 The ability to send farther makes Cabletron and Lucent (2 Mbps) feasible 1 0.9 Breakeven point is less than 1KB 0.9 Wakeup Msg 0.8 0.8 Future Directions 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 Breakeven point (KB) • Implement and evaluate our proposed dual radio scheme in a sensor test bed • Investigate the impact of “real-world” issues on break-even point • Channel Contention • Congestion 0.5 0.5 Breakeven point (KB) 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 Data 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 Destination is reachable in a single hop by both radios Cabletron (2 Mbps) Lucent (2 Mbps) Lucent (11 Mbps) Cabletron (2 Mbps) Lucent (2 Mbps) Lucent (11 Mbps)

More Related