A two-tier data dissemination model for large-scale wireless sensor networks
Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking
Directed diffusion for wireless sensor networking
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON)
TAG: a Tiny AGgregation service for ad-hoc sensor networks
ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review - OSDI '02: Proceedings of the 5th symposium on Operating systems design and implementation
Information-directed routing in ad hoc sensor networks
WSNA '03 Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international conference on Wireless sensor networks and applications
Taming the underlying challenges of reliable multihop routing in sensor networks
Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems
Matching data dissemination algorithms to application requirements
Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems
Wireless Sensor Devices for Animal Tracking and Control
LCN '04 Proceedings of the 29th Annual IEEE International Conference on Local Computer Networks
Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems
Data gathering tours in sensor networks
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Information processing in sensor networks
Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Mobile systems, applications and services
LCN '07 Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks
Murphy loves potatoes: experiences from a pilot sensor network deployment in precision agriculture
IPDPS'06 Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Parallel and distributed processing
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
In the past few years, numerous data collection protocols have been developed for wireless sensor networks (WSNs). However, there has been no comparison of their relative performance in realistic environments. Here we report the results of an empirical study using a Fleck3 sensor network testbed for four different data collection protocols: One phase pull Directed Diffusion (DD), Expected Number of Transmissions (ETX), ETX with explicit acknowledgment (ETX-eAck), and ETX with implicit acknowledgment (ETX-iAck). Our empirical study provides useful insights for future sensor network deployments. When the required application end-to-end reliability is not strict (e.g., 70%) and link quality is good, DD and ETX are the best options because of their simplicity and low routing overhead. Both ETX-eAck and ETX-iAck achieve more than 90% end-to-end reliability when the link quality is reasonable (less than 25% packet loss). When the link quality is good, ETX-iAck introduces significantly less routing overhead (up to 50%) than ETX-eAck. However, if the radio transceiver supports variable packet length, ETX-eAck can outperform ETX-iAck when the link quality is poor. The important message from this paper is that choice of data collection protocol should come after the operating environment is understood. This understanding must include the characteristics of the radio transceiver, and link loss statistics from a long-term (across seasons and weather variation) radio survey of the site.