280 likes | 416 Views
pTunes : Runtime Parameter Adaptation for Low-power MAC Protocols. IPSN 2012 Marco Zimmerling , Federico Ferrari (ETH - Zurich), Luca Mottola , Thiemo Voigt (Swedish Institute of Computer Science), Lothar Thiele (ETH - Zurich) BEST PAPER RUNNER UP - IP TRACK
E N D
pTunes: Runtime Parameter Adaptation for Low-power MAC Protocols IPSN 2012 Marco Zimmerling, Federico Ferrari (ETH - Zurich), Luca Mottola, Thiemo Voigt (Swedish Institute of Computer Science), Lothar Thiele (ETH - Zurich) BEST PAPER RUNNER UP - IP TRACK NSLab study group 2012/09/10 Presented by: Yuting
Outline • Introduction • System Model • Protocol Specific Modeling - X-MAC and LPP • Evaluation • Conclusion
Introduction • Separate protocol-dependent from protocol-independent aspects • A complement of existing MAC protocol • X-MAC, LPP, etc • Runtime adaptation • traffic load, link quality, topology • Multi-objective • reliability R, latency L, lifetime T • Parameter optimization • according to the running MAC protocol • Centralized • a base station running ECLiPSe integrates with the application • Utilize Glossy (IPSN'11) on Contiki
Note • No need to rely on expert knowledgeto find optimized operating parameters • Experience, rules of thumb: performance may not be what we want • Several field trials: time consuming, deployment-specific • Separating adaptivity from MAC operation release the limitation of its applicability
Outline • Introduction • System Model • Protocol Specific Modeling - X-MAC and LPP • Evaluation • Conclusion
Framework Both collecting network state and disseminating MAC parameters exploit Glossy by ECLiPSe c=[Ton, Toff, N] Challenges: - Minimum disruption - Timeliness - Consistency - Energy Efficiency
Modeling Framework (routing tree) (traffic load) (link quality) X-MAC, LPP, etc
Optimization • Multi-objective optimization problem (MOP): max R, min L, max T • Pareto-optimal solutions: trade-off between (R,L,T) • Epsilon-constraint method:treat all but one objective as constraints, ex: • If either constraint is unsatisfiable because of bad network situation?-> depends on user, ex: just maximize R
Term Definition • N: set of all nodes excluding the sink • M ⊆ N: set of source nodes • L: set of communication links • Pn ⊆ L: path originating at node n ∈ M includes all intermediate links that connect node n to the sink
Protocol-independent Modeling Note: here N is"the maximum number of rtx(retransmisstion) per packet" , not the set of nodes excluding sink Note: Nftx,l depend on ps,l and N Note: Q is battery capacity (current*time) Note: 1. similar to packet generation rate , but this is packet transmission rate 2. will be used to deduce Dtx,n and Drx,n in protocol-specific modeling
Outline • Introduction • System Model • Protocol Specific Modeling - X-MAC and LPP • Evaluation • Conclusion
X-MAC: sender-initiated • For broadcast: Tm = 2*Ton + Toff at most Tm(= Ton + Toff ?)
Protocol-specific Modeling • MAC parameters c=[Ton, Toff, N] • Reliability • Latency • Lifetime Tb: backoff before rtx : expected number of strobe iterations : duration of a strobe iteration at the sender (attempts to rx)
LPP: receiver-initiated • For broadcast: Tm = 2*Tl+ Toff(It seems that they mistype Tonas Tm ) at most Ton
Protocol-specific Modeling • MAC parameters c=[Ton, Toff, N] • Reliability • Latency • Lifetime : LPP duty cycle period ; {0,…,Trm}: random dist. for probe Tb: backoff before rtx : wait time before rx a probe, pi: prob of rxi-th probe Ti: expected time to await i-th probe
Outline • Introduction • System Model • Protocol Specific Modeling - X-MAC and LPP • Evaluation • Conclusion
Framework Evaluation Only 6 bytes: nodeID, parentID, Fn, ratio of successful and total number of handshake Hs,l/Ht,l (both of H are counted by a way similar to EWMA) A few tens of seconds -> slow! will be fasterif they use dedicated solution technique Collection period Tc: can range from a few tens of seconds to several minutes Glossy: ~5.2ms for a single flood duty cycles of state-of-art MAC is 3-7%, much higher than the overhead of pTunes
Testbed • 44 TmoteSkynodes and a interferer • Tc= 1min
Model Validation • TimedTrigger: every 10 min • Inter-packet interval (IPI) of all nodes: from 300 s to 180, 60, 30, 20, 10, 5, and 2 s • δ(Mi) = m(Mi) − e(Mi ) • Results is very accurate:
Lifetime Gain • TimedTrigger: every 10 minmaximizes T subject to R ≥ 95 % • Increase the IPI from 10 s to 20 s, 30 s, 60 s, 3 min, 5 min, and 20 min • 1stexp: use pTunes only in the very beginning2ndexp: let pTunes run throughoutthe exp • Lifetime gain: ratio between the lifetime w/ and w/o pTunes
Outline • Introduction • System Model • Protocol Specific Modeling - X-MAC and LPP • Evaluation • Conclusion
Conclusion • Runtime adaptability • Flexible modeling approach • Efficient system support to “close the loop” • Meet the requirements of real world applications as the network state changes • Eliminates the need for time-consuming, and yet error-prone, manual MAC configuration • Some comment • Well written with systematical analysis • Good extended work of Glossy • Optimization solving time is not very fast, and it get slower when there are more nodes • Developer still need to model the protocol specific part