QoS Constraints in Bluetoothbased Wireless Sensor Networks

Veselin Rakocevic, Muttukrishnan Rajarajan, Kerry-Ann McCalla, Charbel Boumitri City University, London
Sep 2004 QofIS 04 1

Motivation
QoS in sensor networks
a change to the way we look at QoS Need for satisfying human users much smaller Independent, low-power nodes communicating They require: Connectivity Reliability (Connection robustness) Low-power operation FRESHNESS OF INFORMATION

Sep 2004

QofIS 04

Bluetooth
<10m; 8-node piconets Master-slave
Master decides on scheduling If two slaves want to communicate, they have to go through the master

Service discovery essential

A long process (2.5 sec)

Scatternets multihop networks Data bursts can be flushed = deleted if some packets arrive late Suitable for sensor networks? maybe not, but we can learn a lot from Bluetooth
Sep 2004 QofIS 04 3

QoS Constraints in Bluetooth networks

Interference Error Correction Transport Control Service Discovery, Connection Establishment, and Scatternet formation Power Consumption Scheduling

Sep 2004

QofIS 04

Scheduling
Master is responsible for scheduling Bluetooth specification does not specify a scheduling scheme round-robin scheduling is assumed Lot of research being done on using different scheduling paradigms This paper presents a comparison between several scheduling schemes in sensor network environment
Sep 2004 QofIS 04 5

Simulation Model
7 slaves and one master Slaves producing traffic
Uniform file size we assume each slave produces a fixed amount of fixed-size packets (bursts)

Master applying the scheduling schemes Three schemes:

Exhaustive: master serves a slave until there are any packets in slaves buffer Limited Exhaustive: master serves a slave until there are any packets belonging to a single burst in the slaves buffer Maximum Burst Delay First: master serves a slave that has a burst which had waited for the longest time
Sep 2004 QofIS 04 6

fi = 1

1 N

di
7 i =1

di

Simulation Model
Symmetric and asymmetric load Measurements:
Percentage of flushed bursts Average burst delay Fairness index (for asymmetric load)

fi = 1
Sep 2004

1 N

di
7 i =1

di
7

QofIS 04

Results 1 symmetric load

percentage of flushed data bursts 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.00E-02 1.00E-03 1.00E-04 1.00E-05 error probability
Sep 2004 QofIS 04 8

In terms of flush probability, MBDF is the best

exhaustive BURST Minimal burst delay

In terms of average delay, exhaustive is the best

Results 2 asymmetric load

0.1 0.08 0.06 delay fairness index 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 bit error probability 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05

MBDF

LimExh

Exh

MBDF is better for the high-load node But how much? More results needed and also implementation details need to be solved

Sep 2004

QofIS 04

Results 3 asymmetric load

0.15 flush probability fairness index 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.3 bit error probability
Sep 2004 QofIS 04 10

1.00E-02

1.00E-03

1.00E-04

1.00E-05

MBDF

LimExh

Exh

Interesting exhaustive scheduling gives more protection to the asymmetric node

Conclusions?
QoS requirements in pervasive/ad-hoc/sensor systems not the same as QoS requirements for web and voice applications Polling scheduling schemes very interesting to analyse Our preliminary results do not agree with expectations we need to work more

Sep 2004

QofIS 04

11

Low power service discovery and scatternet formation

Using Bluetooth in a smart home environment Connectivity, connection robustness, and low power operation essential We are working on a Low Power Discovery Scheme
Objectives: to guarantee connectivity to all nodes Nodes are in low-power SNIFF mode If a master disappears, nodes have to find each other and establish new piconets Difficult to do if they are in low power mode, since they have to continuously listen to service discovery messages
Sep 2004 QofIS 04 12