Modeling Per-flow Throughput and Capturing Starvation in CSMA Multi-hop Wireless Networks
description
Transcript of Modeling Per-flow Throughput and Capturing Starvation in CSMA Multi-hop Wireless Networks
Rice Networks Grouphttp://www.ece.rice.edu/networks
Michele GarettoTheodoros Salonidis Edward W. Knightly
Modeling Per-flow Throughput and Capturing Starvation in CSMA
Multi-hop Wireless Networks
INFOCOM 2006
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Y (m
eter
s)
X (meters)
Example : 50 nodes
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Y (m
eter
s)
X (meters)
50 tx-rx pairs
Example : 50 nodes
Saturated traffic
802.11 DCF (CSMA/CA)
Ideal channel
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Y (m
eter
s)
X (meters)
Example : 50 nodes
Single cellSensing range
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Example : 50 nodes
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Thro
ughp
ut (p
kt/s
)
Rank
Single cell
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Y (m
eter
s)
X (meters)
Sensing Range = 400m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Example : 50 nodes
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Example : 50 nodesTh
roug
hput
(pkt
/s)
Rank 0
50
100
150
200
250
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A few rich flows
Many starving flows !
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Our contributions
We develop an analytical model to compute per-flow throughput in arbitrary network topologies employing 802.11 DCF
We explain the origin of starvation in CSMA-based wireless mesh networks
We propose metrics to quantify starvation due to the MAC
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
The model The channel “private view” of a node:
… …
successful transmission idle slot collision
t
busy channel due to activity of other nodes
Modelled as a renewal-reward process
Throughput (pkt/s) = P [event Ts occurs]
Average duration of an event (s)
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Single cell: DCF can coordinate the nodes
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Mesh Network : DCF cannot coordinate the nodes
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
The model
Event probabilities:
… …t
Define, for each node, the probabilities = probability that the node sends out a packet in a slot= conditional collision probability= conditional busy channel probability
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
The unknown variables for each node are:
Analysis (for backlogged flows)
(a decreasing function of p ) [Bianchi ’00]
The throughput of a node decreases if either: is large (large collision probability) is large (large fraction of busy time)
Throughput formula:
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
The origin of starvation
A node “starves” if either: – the conditional packet loss probabilityor – the fraction of time sensed busy (or both)
are “disproportionally” large as compared to its neighbors
(which are expected to have similar throughput)
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
How can p be disproportionally large ?
bB
aA
The “information asymmetry” scenario
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
How can bTb be disproportionally large ?
The “flow-in-the-middle” scenario
a
A
b
B C
cFlow Aa starves due to large fraction of busy time
idle time of A
busy time of A
channel at node A:
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Incorporates known starvation effects due to the MAC protocol and predict their impact in the presence of many nodes
Requires solving a coupled non-linear multivariate system of equations
System is very sensitive to local perturbations (chaotic system ?)
Can analyze arbitrary topologies Predicts individual flow throughput Has been extended to non-saturated flows
The model
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Model vs Sim – 50-nodes example
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
simmodel
Thro
ughp
ut (p
kt/s
)
Rank
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Pack
et L
oss
Prob
abili
ty
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1 simmodel
Frac
tion
of b
usy
tim
e
Rank 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Model vs Sim – 50-nodes example
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
How to measure starvation ?
We must separate out starvation due to MAC from natural throughput unbalance due to topology (different number of contenders)
We take a reference system in which starvation due to MAC is structurally eliminated :– Slotted aloha (proportional fairness can be
achieved by properly setting nodes’ transmission probabilities [Kar ’04])
We compare the two system using various metrics– aggregate metrics are not adequate– we consider how individual flows are treated in
the two systems
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Disproportionality index
802.11
Aloha prop. fair.
Provides a measure of starvation which is independent of aggregate network throughput 50-nodes example: D = 0.39
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Conclusions Multi-hop wireless networks employing 802.11
(or other variants of CSMA) are subject to severe starvation (under heavy load)
This is a fundamental problem due to lack of coordination between out-of-range transmitters
System performance strongly depends on network topology
We developed an analytical model to predict per-flow throughput in arbitrary topologies and characterize starvation
Thanks !
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Propagation effects
0
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Y (m
eter
s)
X (meters)
Sensing range = tx Range = 100 m
12 flows
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Flow index
11 flows
Pack
et T
hrou
ghpu
t
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Sensing Range = 200 m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Y (m
eter
s)
X (meters)
Tx Range = 200 m50 tx-rx pairs
Example : 50 nodes
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Model vs simulation – 50 nodes
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Pack
et T
hrou
ghpu
t (p
kt/s
)
Flow index
nsmod
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Model vs Sim – 50-nodes example
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 10 20 30 40 50
simmodel
Thro
ughp
ut (p
kt/s
)
Rank
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Pack
et L
oss
Prob
abili
ty
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1 simmodel
Frac
tion
of b
usy
tim
e
Rank 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Model vs Sim – 50-nodes example
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1Pack
et L
oss
Prob
abili
tyFr
acti
on o
f bus
y ti
me
Rank 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Model vs Sim – 50-nodes example
simmodel
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Analysis of Asymmetric Incomplete State scenarios (AIS)
Flow A a does not know when to contend: it has to discover an available gap in the activity of flow B b randomly, where to place an entire RTS or DATA packet
B b…t
…B b B b B b
A a ?RTS/DATA
A a
B baA
b
B
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Analysis of Asimmetric Incomplete State scenarios (AIS)
B bA a
B b B b
B bA a
B b B b
B b A a B b B b
• The collision probability of flow A a can be accurately computed assuming that the first packet arrives at a random point in time • The collision probability of flow B b is zero
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Addressing Starvation
Structural approach : a slotted system with global synchronization (e.g. Slotted Aloha) eliminates starvation due to lack of coordination
Rate-limiting approach : sources are appropriately rate-limited to leave sufficient “air time” to flows subject to starvation
MAC-based approach : enhanced coordination mechanisms on top of existing MAC protocols: – receiver-initiated random access– schedule advertisement– orthogonal access
3 approaches: (within family of random access protocols)
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
System comparison
It is essential to:– Consider how individual flows are treated in
two different systems– Separate out unbalance due to topology
(number of contenders) and starvation due to the MAC protocol
We take as reference system: Slotted Aloha– Starvation structurally eliminated – Attempt probabilities can be set to achieve
proportional fairness:K. Kar, S. Sarkar, L. Tassiulas, Achieving Proportional Fair Rates using Local Information in Aloha Networks, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol . 49, No. 10, October 2004
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Lorentz curve and Gini index
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frac
tion
of a
ggre
gate
thro
ughp
ut
top x flows
802.11Aloha prop fair
ideal
1
Gini 802.11 = 0.76
Gini Aloha = 0.33
Garetto, Salonidis, Knightly
Lorentz curve and Gini index
Sx Range = 400 mTx Range = 200 mSx Range = Tx Range = 200
m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frac
tion
of a
ggre
gate
thro
ughp
ut
top x flows
802.11Aloha prop fair
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Frac
tion
of a
ggre
gate
thro
ughp
ut
top x flows
802.11Aloha prop fair