PIES: Protocol Independent
Energy Saving Algorithm
|
|
|
Yasser Gadallah |
|
|
|
Thomas Kunz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 15, 2004 |
Presentation Outline
|
|
|
Energy Consumption in Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks |
|
Proposed Solution: PIES |
|
PIES Evaluation |
|
Conclusions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy Consumption In
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
|
|
|
Many sources of energy consumption
exist in mobile nodes e.g. screens, HDD, interfaces, etc |
|
Our focus is energy consumed in
wireless interfaces |
|
Energy is consumed in sending,
receiving, idle and sleep modes of operation |
|
It is crucial for energy conservation
that we eliminate or reduce wasted idle energy consumption which constitutes
a large portion of energy consumption is wireless interfaces |
|
To do this, ideally nodes need to be
put to sleep when idle to save this wasted energy |
Proposed Solution: PIES -
Goals
|
|
|
Fair energy conservation: all nodes are
treated equally |
|
Complements existing routing algorithms
from energy conservation perspective |
|
Functionality that is independent of
the underlying routing protocol |
|
Little or no impact on network
operation – no additional major traffic |
|
|
Proposed Solution: PIES -
Characteristics
|
|
|
|
Achieves fair energy conservation by: |
|
Putting nodes to sleep for equal time
periods |
|
Providing the routing algorithm with
energy threshold info to help it make fair energy conscious decisions |
|
Fully distributed algorithm –
functionality does not depend on a node or a set of nodes |
|
Modular nature – easily integrated with
existing routing algorithms |
|
Ability to determine with certainty
neighbors’ sleep state |
|
Configurable in such a way that
introduces no additional traffic to the network |
|
|
|
|
PIES Evaluation – Energy
Performance
PIES Evaluation – Packet
Delivery Performance
PIES Evaluation – Summary
|
|
|
PIES introduces energy savings of about
50% for the conditions we used |
|
It also extends network lifetime by
about 70% |
|
This is done while achieving higher
fairness than in the case of the routing protocol alone |
|
The resulting PDR is comparable to that
of the routing protocol alone |
|
Packet delivery latency increases with
the increase of the ST/WT ratio |
Conclusions
|
|
|
Energy is the most scarce resource for
the functionality of mobile ad hoc networks |
|
PIES is a solution that achieves fair
energy conservation and works with existing routing algorithms |
|
Simulations show that PIES achieves
energy savings of about 50% and extends network lifetime by about 70% |
Backup Slides
Ad Hoc Network Energy
Management Issues – Energy Conservation Challenges
|
|
|
|
Energy conservation mechanisms should
not add significant energy consumption or traffic demands on the network |
|
It should be able to answer the
following questions: |
|
When to put the node to sleep without
knowledge of traffic patterns? |
|
When to wake the node up? |
|
What is the sleep state of a neighbor? |
|
If the neighbor is asleep when will it
wake up? |
|
There should be no major effect on the
normal network functionality (e.g. no major traffic loss) |
|
|
|
|
Energy-Efficient Schemes
- Issues
|
|
|
|
Most routing energy-efficient schemes
ignored idle energy consumption in their analysis |
|
Non-routing energy-efficient schemes
suffered one or more of the following issues: |
|
No attention given to energy fairness
among network nodes |
|
Unrealistic assumptions e.g. traffic
nodes do not forward traffic |
|
Algorithm design tied to a specific
underlying routing strategy |
|
Large impact on the functionality of
the underlying routing scheme |
|
No interaction with underlying routing
protocol which results in unnecessary loss of traffic |
|
Heuristic methodology in determining
neighbors’ sleep state |
Proposed Solution: PIES -
Operation