11 likes | 164 Views
Sensor Network Research Group. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ultra-Low Power Data Storage for Sensors Gaurav Mathur, Peter Desnoyers, Deepak Ganesan and Prashant Shenoy. Motivation: Number of flash memory storage options exist for sensors NOR flash (Mica, Mica2, Telos)
E N D
Sensor Network Research Group University of Massachusetts, Amherst Ultra-Low Power Data Storage for Sensors Gaurav Mathur, Peter Desnoyers, Deepak Ganesan and Prashant Shenoy • Motivation: • Number of flash memory storage options exist for sensors • NOR flash (Mica, Mica2, Telos) • Multimedia cards – MMCs (RISE) • NAND flash (UMass Mica2 adapter board) • No comprehensive empirical comparison of the energy-efficiency of storage alternatives for sensor devices • Many applications require energy-efficient, high-capacity storage • Camera sensing • Acoustic sensing What is the mostenergy-efficient storage platformfor sensor devices ? How does the energy cost ofstorage compareto that ofcomputation and communication? What are theimplications of an ultra-low power storage subsystemon sensor net design? Comparison Study of Storage Technologies Implications of Low Power Storage Toshiba Parallel NAND flash adapter • Challenges conventional wisdom of trade-offs Computation < storage << communication • Energy-efficiency of NAND flash enables ultra-low power, almost infinite storage (~1 GB) Mica2 Atmel serial NOR flash High-capacity, Low-power storage impacts the following sensor application domains by supporting: • Higher degree of local data archival and indexing, which supports in-network query processing • Use of history for efficient network-level compression TelosB STM serial NOR flash MMC adapter • Compare MMC, NOR & NAND flash technology • Measure active & sleep mode power consumption Comparison of the per byte cost of operations (in μJ) Impact on Radio Transmission Costs * Without ECC. Cost of performing ECC in software is approx 0.026μJ/byte • Parallel NAND flash is 21 times more efficient than Telos STM flash and 407 times Mica2 Atmel flash. Comparison of computation, communication and storage costs • BMAC uses a per-packet preamble that leads to a high per-packet transmission cost • Instead, store packets on NAND flash & batch transmit • Can lead to a 58x reduction in communication costs ! Storing data on NAND flashis 369 times more energy efficient than communication http://sensors.cs.umass.edu/projects/essense