many-to-many aggregation for sensor networks adam silberstein and jun yang duke university...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Many-to-Many Aggregation for Sensor Networks
Adam Silberstein and Jun Yang
Duke University
04/18/23 1
Sensor Network Tasks
04/18/23 3
ag
hc
e
i
m
jl
d
fk
b
k
l
m
fk(vb,vc,vd)
fl(va,vb,ve)
fm(vb,vc)
Many-to-One TransmissionMany-to-Many Transmission
In-Network Control
• Multiple sources, multiple destinations– Each destination node computes aggregate
using readings from source nodes• Sources transmit directly to destinations
– Aggregate used as control signal to dictate behavior at destination
• i.e. adjust sampling rate
04/18/23 4
Motivation
• Why spend transmission to control sensor sampling?– Radio typically dominant energy consumer– High-cost sensors: sap flux, swivel cameras
• Use low-cost sensors to tune sampling rates– Sap flux is negligible when soil moisture is low– Activate camera if motion sensors are triggered
• Why not out-of-network control?– Long round trips to root and back– Overtax nodes near root with forwarding
04/18/23 5
Computing Aggregates In-Network
• Multicast– Sources required by multiple destinations– Build tree rooted at each source– Transmit value in “raw” form
• In-network Aggregation– Destination requires multiple sources– Build partial aggregates en-route
• TAG [Madden et al. 02]
– Aggregate destination- specific
04/18/23 6
i j l
k
m
vi
a
b
c
i jwava+wbvb+wcvc
Multicast vs. Aggregation
• Intuitions– Favor multicast near source
• Many destinations per value
– Favor aggregation near destination• Destination has many values
04/18/23 7
a
b
ci j
wk,ava+wk,bvb+wk,cvc+wk,dvd
d
l
m
k
wl,ava+wl,bvb+wl,cvc
wm,ava
raw: va
agg: wk,bvb+wk,cvc+wk,dvd
agg: wl,bvb+wl,cvc
Edge Workloads
• How do we determine the workload for each edge?
• Multicast trees from each source dictate how data are routed– Minimality
• Trees have no extra edges
– Sharing • If two trees have paths between same pair of
nodes, paths are identical
04/18/23 9
Single-Edge Problem
04/18/23 10
a b c d
k 1 1 1 1
l 1 1 1
m 1
SourcesDest.
S i→j
D i→j
a
b
ci j
d
l
m
k wk,ava+wk,bvb+wk,cvc+wk,dvd
wl,ava+wl,bvb+wl,cvc
wm,ava
~ i!j denotes producer-consumer relationship between i and j
Reduction
04/18/23 11
a b c d
k 1 1 1 1
l 1 1 1
m 1
SourcesDest.
S i→j
D i→j
c
a
b
dm
l
k
Sources Destinations
weighted bipartitevertex cover
• Problem: Find minimal set of vertices such that all edges have one selected vertex
• Implications Select source = multicast: value transmitted raw over edge,
satisfying “column” Select destination = aggregate: values aggregated and
transmitted over edge, satisfying “row” Each selection contributes marginal cost of 1 to message
1
1c
1 1 1 l
Global Solution II
• Theorem: Optimal solutions for the individual MVC problems at each edge combine for consistent global plan
• Implications1. Solve global problem by solving edges in isolation
• Bipartite vertex cover solvable in polynomial time
2. When problem changes due to failures, route adjustments, workload adjustments, etc...• Only affected edges must be re-optimized!
04/18/23 13
Plan Implementation
• For each s~d, store wd,s once in network– At edge where raw to aggregate transition
occurs
• 4 lightweight tables per node htuple_typei– Raw table: hs,gi– Pre-aggregation table: hs,d,wd,si– Partial aggregation table: hd,c,md,gi – Outgoing message table: hg,c,n’i
• Space consumed by tables no more than by pure multicast or aggregation plan
04/18/23 15
Dynamic Features
• Suppression– Sources only transmit when readings change– Intuition: High suppression favors raw values– A node may override local solution
• Raws to be aggregated can be sent raw instead– Locally optimal decision, but must stay raw until
destinations, risking sub-optimal behavior downstream
04/18/23 16
Dynamic Features
• Milestone– Rigid solution burdens routing layer– Don’t “solve” every routing hop
– Instead, set milestone nodes• Optimize over virtual edges, not physical edges
04/18/23 17
a b c d eoptimize optimize optimize optimize
a b c d e
optimizeoptimize
??
Experimental Setup
• Simulation of Mica2 Motes– Accounting of bytes sent + received
• 68 nodes located as in 2003 Great Duck Island deployment (~20000 m2)
• Four Algorithms– Flood
• Each source transmits to ALL nodes
– Multicast– Aggregation– Optimal
04/18/23 18
Varying # of Destinations
04/18/23 19
• Fix number of sources per destination, vary number of destinations • Fewer destinations favors aggregation• Optimal makes best decision at all settings
Varying # Sources
04/18/23 20
• Fix number of destinations, vary number of sources per• Fewer sources favors multicast• Optimal is again best at all settings
Suppression Override Policies
04/18/23 21
• Policies dictate how much better locally optimal solution must be• Conservative (local must be dramatically better) gives benefit of of override at high suppression with little penalty at low
top related