TSCH Multiflow Scheduling with QoS Guarantees: A Comparison of SDN with Common Schedulers
Industrial Wireless Sensor Networks (IWSN) are becoming increasingly popular in production environments due to their ease of deployment, low cost and energy efficiency. However, the complexity and accuracy demanded by these environments requires that IWSN implement quality of service mechanisms that...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Applied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/1/119 |
| _version_ | 1797499629390004224 |
|---|---|
| author | Federico Orozco-Santos Víctor Sempere-Payá Javier Silvestre-Blanes Teresa Albero-Albero |
| author_facet | Federico Orozco-Santos Víctor Sempere-Payá Javier Silvestre-Blanes Teresa Albero-Albero |
| author_sort | Federico Orozco-Santos |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Industrial Wireless Sensor Networks (IWSN) are becoming increasingly popular in production environments due to their ease of deployment, low cost and energy efficiency. However, the complexity and accuracy demanded by these environments requires that IWSN implement quality of service mechanisms that allow them to operate with high determinism. For this reason, the IEEE 802.15.4e standard incorporates the Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) protocol which reduces interference and increases the reliability of transmissions. This standard does not specify how time resources are allocated in TSCH scheduling, leading to multiple scheduling solutions. Schedulers can be classified as autonomous, distributed and centralised. The first two have prevailed over the centralised ones because they do not require high signalling, along with the advantages of ease of deployment and high performance. However, the increased QoS requirements and the diversity of traffic flows that circulate through the network in today’s Industry 4.0 environment require strict, dynamic control to guarantee parameters such as delay, packet loss and deadline, independently for each flow. That cannot always be achieved with distributed or autonomous schedulers. For this reason, it is necessary to use centralised protocols with a disruptive approach, such as Software Defined Networks (SDN). In these, not only is the control of the MAC layer centralised, but all the decisions of the nodes that make up the network are configured by the controller based on a global vision of the topology and resources, which allows optimal decisions to be made. In this work, a comparative analysis is made through simulation and a testbed of the different schedulers to demonstrate the benefits of a fully centralized approach such as SDN. The results obtained show that with SDN it is possible to simplify the management of multiple flows, without the problems of centralised schedulers. SDN maintains the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) levels of other distributed solutions, but in addition, it achieves greater determinism with bounded end-to-end delays and Deadline Satisfaction Ratio (DSR) at the cost of increased power consumption. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T03:51:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-446541d157334d85b8d72c0b187a7b4e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-3417 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T03:51:06Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Applied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-446541d157334d85b8d72c0b187a7b4e2023-11-23T11:07:55ZengMDPI AGApplied Sciences2076-34172021-12-0112111910.3390/app12010119TSCH Multiflow Scheduling with QoS Guarantees: A Comparison of SDN with Common SchedulersFederico Orozco-Santos0Víctor Sempere-Payá1Javier Silvestre-Blanes2Teresa Albero-Albero3Instituto Tecnológico de Informática (ITI), 46022 Valencia, SpainInstituto Tecnológico de Informática (ITI), 46022 Valencia, SpainInstituto Tecnológico de Informática (ITI), 46022 Valencia, SpainInstituto Tecnológico de Informática (ITI), 46022 Valencia, SpainIndustrial Wireless Sensor Networks (IWSN) are becoming increasingly popular in production environments due to their ease of deployment, low cost and energy efficiency. However, the complexity and accuracy demanded by these environments requires that IWSN implement quality of service mechanisms that allow them to operate with high determinism. For this reason, the IEEE 802.15.4e standard incorporates the Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) protocol which reduces interference and increases the reliability of transmissions. This standard does not specify how time resources are allocated in TSCH scheduling, leading to multiple scheduling solutions. Schedulers can be classified as autonomous, distributed and centralised. The first two have prevailed over the centralised ones because they do not require high signalling, along with the advantages of ease of deployment and high performance. However, the increased QoS requirements and the diversity of traffic flows that circulate through the network in today’s Industry 4.0 environment require strict, dynamic control to guarantee parameters such as delay, packet loss and deadline, independently for each flow. That cannot always be achieved with distributed or autonomous schedulers. For this reason, it is necessary to use centralised protocols with a disruptive approach, such as Software Defined Networks (SDN). In these, not only is the control of the MAC layer centralised, but all the decisions of the nodes that make up the network are configured by the controller based on a global vision of the topology and resources, which allows optimal decisions to be made. In this work, a comparative analysis is made through simulation and a testbed of the different schedulers to demonstrate the benefits of a fully centralized approach such as SDN. The results obtained show that with SDN it is possible to simplify the management of multiple flows, without the problems of centralised schedulers. SDN maintains the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) levels of other distributed solutions, but in addition, it achieves greater determinism with bounded end-to-end delays and Deadline Satisfaction Ratio (DSR) at the cost of increased power consumption.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/1/119AMUSIWSNOrchestraQoSSDNTSCH |
| spellingShingle | Federico Orozco-Santos Víctor Sempere-Payá Javier Silvestre-Blanes Teresa Albero-Albero TSCH Multiflow Scheduling with QoS Guarantees: A Comparison of SDN with Common Schedulers Applied Sciences AMUS IWSN Orchestra QoS SDN TSCH |
| title | TSCH Multiflow Scheduling with QoS Guarantees: A Comparison of SDN with Common Schedulers |
| title_full | TSCH Multiflow Scheduling with QoS Guarantees: A Comparison of SDN with Common Schedulers |
| title_fullStr | TSCH Multiflow Scheduling with QoS Guarantees: A Comparison of SDN with Common Schedulers |
| title_full_unstemmed | TSCH Multiflow Scheduling with QoS Guarantees: A Comparison of SDN with Common Schedulers |
| title_short | TSCH Multiflow Scheduling with QoS Guarantees: A Comparison of SDN with Common Schedulers |
| title_sort | tsch multiflow scheduling with qos guarantees a comparison of sdn with common schedulers |
| topic | AMUS IWSN Orchestra QoS SDN TSCH |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/1/119 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT federicoorozcosantos tschmultiflowschedulingwithqosguaranteesacomparisonofsdnwithcommonschedulers AT victorsemperepaya tschmultiflowschedulingwithqosguaranteesacomparisonofsdnwithcommonschedulers AT javiersilvestreblanes tschmultiflowschedulingwithqosguaranteesacomparisonofsdnwithcommonschedulers AT teresaalberoalbero tschmultiflowschedulingwithqosguaranteesacomparisonofsdnwithcommonschedulers |