Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • apa.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Comparative Analysis of Buffer Management Algorithms for Delay Tolerant Wireless Sensor Networks
Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (KTH).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1737-133X
Karlstad University, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology (starting 2013), Department of Mathematics and Computer Science (from 2013). (Distributed Systems and Communications Research Group (DISCO))ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4147-9487
Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (KTH). (Kommunikationssystem)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6427-4612
Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (KTH). (Kommunikationssystem)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3172-076X
2021 (English)In: IEEE Sensors Journal, ISSN 1530-437X, E-ISSN 1558-1748, Vol. 21, no 7, p. 9612-9619Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

One of the challenges in Delay Tolerant Wireless Sensor Networks (DT-WSN), is to handle situations where the available buffer space is insufficient - the buffer management problem. Although several buffer management algorithms have been proposed for DT-WSNs, to the best of our knowledge, there is no comprehensive study on the effects different factors have on their performance, and which evaluates the relative performance of these algorithms in different contexts. This paper evaluates in a fixed-factor factorial experiment the performance in terms of latency and Quality of Information (QoI) of four representative buffer management algorithms for DT-WSNs; two traditional, FiFO and Random, and two QoI-based algorithms - one proposed by Humber and Ngai and the SmartGap algorithm. The evaluation suggests that the buffer management algorithm in combination with employed routing protocol and the sensor node buffer sizes have a significant impact on latency, while the obtained QoI rather depends on the characteristics of the transported data and the routing protocol, provided a single-copy routing protocol is used. Moreover, the evaluation suggests that QoI-based buffer management algorithms do offer improved QoI, with an 31% improvement in MAE for SmartGap compared to FIFO. However, they do so at the expense of higher latency, with SmartGap giving a 60% higher latency than FIFO on average.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
IEEE Press, 2021. Vol. 21, no 7, p. 9612-9619
Keywords [en]
delay tolerant, wireless sensor networks, wsn, dt-wsn, buffer
National Category
Telecommunications
Research subject
Computer Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-82548DOI: 10.1109/JSEN.2021.3054513ISI: 000626579600087Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85100518918OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-82548DiVA, id: diva2:1521382
Available from: 2021-01-22 Created: 2021-01-22 Last updated: 2021-04-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Grinnemo, Karl-Johan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Söderman, PehrGrinnemo, Karl-JohanHidell, MarkusSjödin, Peter
By organisation
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science (from 2013)
In the same journal
IEEE Sensors Journal
Telecommunications

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 214 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • apa.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf