Keynote 3: Distributed processing in wireless ad hoc and sensor networks

2012 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zenon Chaczko ◽  
Christopher Chiu ◽  
Shahrzad Aslanzadeh ◽  
Toby Dune

Sensor-Actor Network Solution for Scalable Ad-hoc Sensor NetworksArchitects of ad-hoc wireless Sensor-Actor Networks (SANETS) face various problems and challenges. The main limitations relate to aspects such as the number of sensor nodes involved, low bandwidth, management of resources and issues related to energy management. In order for these networks to be functionally proficient, the underlying software system must be able to effectively handle unreliable and dynamic distributed communication, power constraints of wireless devices, failure of hardware devices in hostile environments and the remote allocation of distributed processing tasks throughout the wireless network. The solution must be solved in a highly scalable manner. This paper provides the requirements analysis and presents the design of a software system middleware that provides a scalable solution for ad-hoc sensor network infrastructure made of both stationary and mobile sensors and actuators.


2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (12) ◽  
pp. 3158-3160
Author(s):  
Jia YU ◽  
Ying-you WEN ◽  
Hong ZHAO
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Baumann ◽  
Dimitar Misev ◽  
Vlad Merticariu ◽  
Bang Pham Huu

AbstractMulti-dimensional arrays (also known as raster data or gridded data) play a key role in many, if not all science and engineering domains where they typically represent spatio-temporal sensor, image, simulation output, or statistics “datacubes”. As classic database technology does not support arrays adequately, such data today are maintained mostly in silo solutions, with architectures that tend to erode and not keep up with the increasing requirements on performance and service quality. Array Database systems attempt to close this gap by providing declarative query support for flexible ad-hoc analytics on large n-D arrays, similar to what SQL offers on set-oriented data, XQuery on hierarchical data, and SPARQL and CIPHER on graph data. Today, Petascale Array Database installations exist, employing massive parallelism and distributed processing. Hence, questions arise about technology and standards available, usability, and overall maturity. Several papers have compared models and formalisms, and benchmarks have been undertaken as well, typically comparing two systems against each other. While each of these represent valuable research to the best of our knowledge there is no comprehensive survey combining model, query language, architecture, and practical usability, and performance aspects. The size of this comparison differentiates our study as well with 19 systems compared, four benchmarked to an extent and depth clearly exceeding previous papers in the field; for example, subsetting tests were designed in a way that systems cannot be tuned to specifically these queries. It is hoped that this gives a representative overview to all who want to immerse into the field as well as a clear guidance to those who need to choose the best suited datacube tool for their application. This article presents results of the Research Data Alliance (RDA) Array Database Assessment Working Group (ADA:WG), a subgroup of the Big Data Interest Group. It has elicited the state of the art in Array Databases, technically supported by IEEE GRSS and CODATA Germany, to answer the question: how can data scientists and engineers benefit from Array Database technology? As it turns out, Array Databases can offer significant advantages in terms of flexibility, functionality, extensibility, as well as performance and scalability—in total, the database approach of offering “datacubes” analysis-ready heralds a new level of service quality. Investigation shows that there is a lively ecosystem of technology with increasing uptake, and proven array analytics standards are in place. Consequently, such approaches have to be considered a serious option for datacube services in science, engineering and beyond. Tools, though, vary greatly in functionality and performance as it turns out.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ermioni Qafzezi ◽  
Kevin Bylykbashi ◽  
Phudit Ampririt ◽  
Makoto Ikeda ◽  
Keita Matsuo ◽  
...  

Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (VANETs) aim to improve the efficiency and safety of transportation systems by enabling communication between vehicles and roadside units, without relying on a central infrastructure. However, since there is a tremendous amount of data and significant number of resources to be dealt with, data and resource management become their major issues. Cloud, Fog and Edge computing, together with Software Defined Networking (SDN) are anticipated to provide flexibility, scalability and intelligence in VANETs while leveraging distributed processing environment. In this paper, we consider this architecture and implement and compare two Fuzzy-based Systems for Assessment of Neighboring Vehicles Processing Capability (FS-ANVPC1 and FS-ANVPC2) to determine the processing capability of neighboring vehicles in Software Defined Vehicular Ad hoc Networks (SDN-VANETs). The computational, networking and storage resources of vehicles comprise the Edge Computing resources in a layered Cloud-Fog-Edge architecture. A vehicle which needs additional resources to complete certain tasks and process various data can use the resources of the neighboring vehicles if the requirements to realize such operations are fulfilled. The proposed systems are used to assess the processing capability of each neighboring vehicle and based on the final value, it can be determined whether the edge layer can be used by the vehicles in need. FS-ANVPC1 takes into consideration the available resources of the neighboring vehicles and the predicted contact duration between them and the present vehicle, while FS-ANVPC2 includes in addition the vehicles trustworthiness value. Our systems take also into account the neighboring vehicles’ willingness to share their resources and determine the processing capability for each neighbor. We evaluate the proposed systems by computer simulations. The evaluation results show that FS-ANVPC1 decides that helpful neighboring vehicles are the ones that are predicted to be within the vehicle communication range for a while and have medium/large amount of available resources. FS-ANVPC2 considers the same neighboring vehicles as helpful neighbors only if they have at least a moderate trustworthiness value ( VT = 0.5). When VT is higher, FS-ANVPC2 takes into consideration also neighbors with less available resources.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document