smac_infocom
Download
Report
Transcript smac_infocom
An Energy-Efficient MAC Protocol
for Wireless Sensor Networks
Wei Ye1, John Heidemann1, Deborah Estrin2
1USC Information Sciences Institute
2UCLA and USC/ISI
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
1
Introduction
Wireless sensor network
•
•
•
•
•
Special ad hoc wireless network
Large number of nodes w/ sensors & actuators
Battery-powered nodes
energy efficiency
Unplanned deployment
self-organization
Node density & topology change
robustness
Sensor-net applications
• Nodes cooperate for a common task
• In-network data processing
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
2
Medium Access Control in Sensor Nets
Important attributes of MAC protocols
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Collision avoidance
Energy efficiency
Scalability in node density
Latency
Fairness
Throughput
Bandwidth utilization
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
Primary
Secondary
3
Energy Efficiency in MAC
Major sources of energy waste
• Idle listening
0.14
0.12
0.1
Diffusion
Flooding
Omniscient Multicast
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
00
50
100
150
200
250
300
Network Size
Over always-listening MAC
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
Average Dissipated Energy
(Joules/Node/Received Event)
(Joules/Node/Received Event)
Average Dissipated Energy
Energy consumption of typical 802.11 WLAN cards
idle:receive — 1:1.05 to 1:2 (Stemm 1997)
Example: directed diffusion (Intanagonwiwat 2000)
0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
00
Flooding
Omniscient Multicast
Diffusion
50
100
150
200
250
Network Size
Over energy-aware MAC
4
300
Energy Efficiency in MAC
Major sources of energy waste (cont.)
• Idle listening
Dominant in sensor nets
Long idle time when no sensing event happens
• Collisions
• Control overhead
• Overhearing
Common to all
wireless networks
We try to reduce energy consumption from
all above sources
Combine benefits of TDMA + contention
protocols
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
5
Sensor-MAC (S-MAC) Design
Tradeoffs
Latency
Fairness
Energy
Major components in S-MAC
•
•
•
•
Periodic listen and sleep
Collision avoidance
Overhearing avoidance
Massage passing
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
6
Periodic Listen and Sleep
Problem: Idle listening consumes significant
energy
Solution: Periodic listen and sleep
listen
sleep
listen
sleep
• Turn off radio when sleeping
• Reduce duty cycle to ~ 10% (200ms on/2s off)
Latency
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
Energy
7
Periodic Listen and Sleep
Schedules can differ
Node 1
Node 2
listen
sleep
listen
listen
sleep
sleep
listen
sleep
• Prefer neighboring nodes have same schedule
— easy broadcast & low control overhead
Schedule 1
Schedule 2
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
Border nodes:
two schedules
broadcast twice
8
Periodic Listen and Sleep
Schedule Synchronization
• Remember neighbors’ schedules
— to know when to send to them
• Each node broadcasts its schedule every few
periods of sleeping and listening
• Re-sync when receiving a schedule update
• Schedule packets also serve as beacons for new
nodes to join a neighborhood
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
9
Collision Avoidance
Problem: Multiple senders want to talk
Options: Contention vs. TDMA
Solution: Similar to IEEE 802.11 ad hoc
mode (DCF)
•
•
•
•
Physical and virtual carrier sense
Randomized backoff time
RTS/CTS for hidden terminal problem
RTS/CTS/DATA/ACK sequence
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
10
Overhearing Avoidance
Problem: Receive packets destined to others
Solution: Sleep when neighbors talk
• Basic idea from PAMAS (Singh, Raghavendra 1998)
• But we only use in-channel signaling
Who should sleep?
• All immediate neighbors of sender and receiver
How long to sleep?
• The duration field in each packet informs other
nodes the sleep interval
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
11
Message Passing
Problem: Sensor net in-network processing
requires entire message
Solution: Don’t interleave different messages
• Long message is fragmented & sent in burst
• RTS/CTS reserve medium for entire message
• Fragment-level error recovery — ACK
— extend Tx time and re-transmit immediately
Other nodes sleep for whole message time
Fairness
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
Energy
Msg-level latency
12
Msg Passing vs. 802.11 fragmentation
S-MAC message passing
Data 19
RTS 21
ACK 18
CTS 20
...
Data 17
ACK 16
Data 1
...
ACK 0
Fragmentation in IEEE 802.11
• No indication of entire time — other nodes keep listening
• If ACK is not received, give up Tx — fairness
Data 3
RTS 3
CTS 2
Data 3
ACK 2
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
...
ACK 2
Data 1
...
13
ACK 0
Implementation on Testbed Nodes
Platform
Motes (UC Berkeley)
8-bit CPU at 4MHz,
8KB flash, 512B RAM
916MHz radio
TinyOS: event-driven
Compared MAC modules
1. IEEE 802.11-like protocol w/o sleeping
2. Message passing with overhearing avoidance
3. S-MAC (2 + periodic listen/sleep)
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
14
Experiments
Topology and measured energy consumption
on source nodes
Average energy consumption in the source nodes
1800
Source 2
Sink 1
Sink 2
• Each source node sends
10 messages
— Each message has 400B
in 10 fragments
802.11-like protocol
Overhearing avoidance
S-MAC
1600
Energy consumption (mJ)
Source 1
• Measure total energy over
time to send all messages
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2
4
6
8
Message inter-arrival period (second)
15
10
Conclusions
S-MAC offers significant energy efficiency
over always-listening MAC protocols
Future Plans
• Measurement of throughput and latency
Throughput reduces due to latency, contention,
control overhead and channel noise
• Experiments on large testbeds
~100 Motes, ~30 embedded PCs w/ MoteNIC
URL: http://www.isi.edu/scadds/
IEEE INFOCOM 2002
16