1 / 19

EDCF / EPCF Comparisons

EDCF / EPCF Comparisons. Matthew Sherman AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932 973-236-6925 mjsherman@att.com. Author:. Date: September 8, 2002. Purpose of Document. Quick comparison of EDCF with EPCF Mostly for new comers. Background.

savea
Download Presentation

EDCF / EPCF Comparisons

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EDCF / EPCF Comparisons Matthew Sherman AT&T Labs - Research 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932 973-236-6925 mjsherman@att.com Author: Date: September 8, 2002 Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  2. Purpose of Document • Quick comparison of EDCF with EPCF • Mostly for new comers Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  3. Background • Few comparisons of E-DCF and HCF • AT&T has simulated both E-DCF and E-PCF • E-DCF simulations – eg. 01/004 and 01/019 • E-PCF simulations – eg. 02/303, 02/304, 02/305 • E-PCF just like HCF except CF access only during CFP • HCF should perform even better since less constrained • Easier for AT&T to simulate E-PCF • AT&T’s original interest before HCF created • AT&T never provided head to head comparison • First such comparisons by AT&T Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  4. Simulation Scenario • Same parameters as in 01/004 • 01/004 did not use PHY • Ran CC/RR/EDCF code • with 802.11b PHY • with 802.11b access parameters but no modeling of PHY overhead • Some output statistics different as well Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  5. Plots Collected • Matched plots in 01/004 as closely as possible • Statistics not identical to CC/RR/EDCF model • Stuck with Throughput (Goodput), Media Access Delay, and Data Dropped • “Streams” here correlate to “Calls” in 01/004 • Streams are renumbered (relative to Calls) to correlate with when streams start Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  6. E-PCF sims of E-DCF Scenarios • Configured code to run E-DCF Scenarios using E-PCF • 20 msec Beacon Period (18 msec CFP) • E-DCF simulations used 100 msec Beacon Period • Standing Poll (no CC/RR) • Addresses arranged according to priority • Priority based scheduler • no attempt at fairness Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  7. 5.0 Mbps MEDIUM 2.5 Mbps LOW 5.0 Mbps TOP 2.5 Mbps LOW Traffic loading • Same EDCF parameters for classes as 00/004 0 30 90 150 Time (sec) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  8. E-PCF simulationsof E-DCF scenarios Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  9. Throughput E-DCF E-PCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  10. Media Access Delay E-DCF E-PCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  11. Media Access Delay (Zoomed) E-DCF E-PCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  12. Data Dropped E-DCF E-PCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  13. Data Analysis – E-PCF • Dramatic performance differences between E-DCF and E-PCF • High priority delays / drops much better for E-PCF • Difference between acceptable / unacceptable Voice • E-DCF much more sensitive to overload • E-PCF drops less data in general • No “fairness” between classes in E-PCF • Could be fixed with more advanced scheduler • HCF would be better still Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  14. E-PCF simulationsof E-DCF scenarios(No PHY) Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  15. Throughput E-DCF E-PCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  16. Media Access Delay E-DCF E-PCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  17. Media Access Delay (Zoomed) E-DCF E-PCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  18. Data Dropped E-DCF E-PCF Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

  19. Data Analysis – E-PCF (no PHY) • While the E-DCF performance degradation is not as sever as with the PHY it is still substantial • All the comments identified for the simulations with a PHY would still apply Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs - Research

More Related