BodyQoS: Adaptive and RadioAgnostic QoS for Body Sensor Networks

1
BodyQoS Adaptive and Radio-Agnostic QoS for Body
Sensor Networks

• Gang Zhou
• College of William and Mary
• Jian Lu
• University of Virginia
• Chieh-Yih Wan, Mark D. Yarvis
• Intel Research
• John A. Stankovic
• University of Virginia

IEEE INFOCOM 2008
2
Hurricane Katrina Relief
3
911 Terrorist Attack
4
Health Monitoring During Emergency

• Manual tracking of patient status, based on
  papers and phones, is the past
• Real-time continuous monitoring, through body
  sensor networks, is the future

5
A Typical Body Sensor Network
Limb motion muscle activity
Heart rate blood oxygen saturation
Two-Lead EKG
6
Quality of Service for Body Sensor Networks

• BodyQoS Goals
• Priority-based admission control
• Wireless resource scheduling
• Providing effective bandwidth

• Design Constraints
• Heterogeneous resources
• Heterogeneous radio platforms

Data
Control
7
BodyQoS Contributios

• The first Running QoS System for Body Sensor
  Networks
• Asymmetric Architecture
• Most work for the aggregator
• Little work for sensor nodes
• Virtual MAC
• Separate QoS scheduling from underlying real MAC
• Easy to port to different radio platforms
• Effective BW Allocation
• Adaptive resource scheduling, so that
  statistically the delivered BW meets QoS
  requirements, even during interference

8
Asymmetric Architecture

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

BodyQoS



9
Wireless Resource Abstraction

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

10
Wireless Resource Abstraction

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

Tinterval
11
Wireless Resource Abstraction

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

Npkt
12
Wireless Resource Abstraction

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

Spkt
13
Wireless Resource Abstraction

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

Tpkt
14
Wireless Resource Abstraction

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

TmaxPkt
15
Wireless Resource Abstraction

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

TminSleep
16
Virtual MAC Operation

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

BWeffective
Delivered Bytes / Actual Time
17
Effective BW Allocation

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

The ideal case no Interference
The general case when interference is present
If application requests BW bi, BodyQoS allocates
BW bi
That is, in each interval Tinterval, QoS
scheduler requests VMAC to send/receive Di
packets within time TiDiTpkt
Minimum per packet transmission time
Interval length
Packet size
18
Effective BW Allocation

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

The general case when interference is present
Max. MAC Retrans. Time
H
H
Interference
Interference
19
Performance Evaluation Setup
20
Performance

• Adaptive QoS always delivers requested BW
• Delivered BWs for RTP-Like QoS and best-effort
  reduce when interference increase
• RTP-like QoS has better performance than
  best-effort

21
Conclusions

• We designed, implemented, and evaluated the first
  Running QoS System for Body Sensor Networks
• Asymmetric Architecture
• Most work for the aggregator
• Little work for sensor nodes
• Virtual MAC
• Separate QoS scheduling from underlying real MAC
• Easy to port to different radio platforms
• Effective BW Allocation
• Adaptive resource scheduling, so that
  statistically the delivered BW meets QoS
  requirements, even during interference
• For more information, visit www.cs.wm.edu/gzhou

22
The End
23
Effective BW Allocation

• Asymmetric Architecture
• Virtual MAC
• Effective BW Allocation

The general case when interference is present
Max. MAC Retrans. Time
H
H
Interference
Interference
24
Implementation
Most Work Done at the Aggregator
25
Evaluation -- Bandwidth Delivery Ratio

• Adaptive QoS always delivers requested BW
• Delivered BWs for RTP-Like QoS and best-effort
  reduce when interference increase
• RTP-like QoS has better performance than
  best-effort

Aggregator Side
26
Evaluation -- Data Buffer Fetching Speed

• Adaptive QoS always maintains 4Kbps fetching
  speed
• Fetching speeds of RTP-Like QoS and best-effort
  reduce when interference is present
• Fetching speed of RTP-like QoS is higher than
  that of best-effort

Mote Side