15-744: Computer Networking L-13 Sensor Networks.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Directed Diffusion for Wireless Sensor Networking
Advertisements

Sensor Network 教育部資通訊科技人才培育先導型計畫. 1.Introduction General Purpose  A wireless sensor network (WSN) is a wireless network using sensors to cooperatively.
1 Routing Techniques in Wireless Sensor networks: A Survey.
1 Sensor Network Databases Ref: Wireless sensor networks---An information processing approach Feng Zhao and Leonidas Guibas (chapter 6)
DIRECTED DIFFUSION. Directed Diffusion Data centric A node request data by sending interest for named data Data matching interest is drawn toward that.
Monday, June 01, 2015 ARRIVE: Algorithm for Robust Routing in Volatile Environments 1 NEST Retreat, Lake Tahoe, June
1 Next Century Challenges: Scalable Coordination in sensor Networks MOBICOMM (1999) Deborah Estrin, Ramesh Govindan, John Heidemann, Satish Kumar Presented.
Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks.
Sensor Networks Issues Solutions Some slides are from Estrin’s early talks.
PEDS September 18, 2006 Power Efficient System for Sensor Networks1 S. Coleri, A. Puri and P. Varaiya UC Berkeley Eighth IEEE International Symposium on.
DNA Research Group 1 CountTorrent: Ubiquitous Access to Query Aggregates in Dynamic and Mobile Sensor Networks Abhinav Kamra, Vishal Misra and Dan Rubenstein.
1 Supporting Aggregate Queries Over Ad-Hoc Wireless Sensor Networks Samuel Madden UC Berkeley With Robert Szewczyk, Michael Franklin, and David Culler.
DTNLite: Reliable Data Delivery in Sensornets Rabin Patra and Sergiu Nedevschi UCB Nest Retreat 2004.
Dissemination protocols for large sensor networks Fan Ye, Haiyun Luo, Songwu Lu and Lixia Zhang Department of Computer Science UCLA Chien Kang Wu.
Naming in Wireless Sensor Networks. 2 Sensor Naming  Exploiting application-specific naming and in- network processing for building efficient scalable.
Tributaries and Deltas: Efficient and Robust Aggregation in Sensor Network Streams Amit Manjhi, Suman Nath, Phillip B. Gibbons Carnegie Mellon University.
Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks Intanagonwiwat, Govindan, Estrin USC, Information Sciences Institute,
Taming the Underlying Challenges of Reliable Multihop Routing in Sensor Networks.
Aggregate Query Processing in Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Yong Yao Database lunch, Apr. 15th.
Adaptive Self-Configuring Sensor Network Topologies ns-2 simulation & performance analysis Zhenghua Fu Ben Greenstein Petros Zerfos.
Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks Charlmek Intanagonwiwat Ramesh Govindan Deborah Estrin Presentation.
TAG: A TINY AGGREGATION SERVICE FOR AD-HOC SENSOR NETWORKS Presented by Akash Kapoor SAMUEL MADDEN, MICHAEL J. FRANKLIN, JOSEPH HELLERSTEIN, AND WEI HONG.
T AG : A TINY AGGREGATION SERVICE FOR AD - HOC SENSOR NETWORKS Samuel Madden, Michael J. Franklin, Joseph Hellerstein, and Wei Hong Presented by – Mahanth.
1 Energy Efficient Communication in Wireless Sensor Networks Yingyue Xu 8/14/2015.
15-744: Computer Networking L-13 Sensor Networks.
Sensor Coordination using Role- based Programming Steven Cheung NSF NeTS NOSS Informational Meeting October 18, 2005.
TAG: a Tiny Aggregation Service for Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Paper By : Samuel Madden, Michael J. Franklin, Joseph Hellerstein, and Wei Hong Instructor :
L-22 Sensor Networks. 2 Overview Ad hoc routing Sensor Networks Directed Diffusion Aggregation  TAG  Synopsis Diffusion.
CS2510 Fault Tolerance and Privacy in Wireless Sensor Networks partially based on presentation by Sameh Gobriel.
1 Chalermek Intanagonwiwat (USC/ISI) Ramesh Govindan (USC/ISI) Deborah Estrin (USC/ISI and UCLA) DARPA Sponsored SCADDS project Directed Diffusion
Ubiquitous Networks WSN Routing Protocols Lynn Choi Korea University.
Routing and Data Dissemination. Outline Motivation and Challenges Basic Idea of Three Routing and Data Dissemination schemes in Sensor Networks Some Thoughts.
March 6th, 2008Andrew Ofstad ECE 256, Spring 2008 TAG: a Tiny Aggregation Service for Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Samuel Madden, Michael J. Franklin, Joseph.
1 Pradeep Kumar Gunda (Thanks to Jigar Doshi and Shivnath Babu for some slides) TAG: a Tiny Aggregation Service for Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Samuel Madden,
TAG: a Tiny Aggregation Service for Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Authors: Samuel Madden, Michael Franklin, Joseph Hellerstein Presented by: Vikas Motwani CSE.
1 TAG: A Tiny Aggregation Service for Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Samuel Madden UC Berkeley with Michael Franklin, Joseph Hellerstein, and Wei Hong December.
Query Processing for Sensor Networks Yong Yao and Johannes Gehrke (Presentation: Anne Denton March 8, 2003)
 SNU INC Lab MOBICOM 2002 Directed Diffusion for Wireless Sensor Networking C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, D. Estrin, John Heidemann, and Fabio Silva.
Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks ChalermekRameshDeborah Intanagonwiwat Govindan Estrin Mobicom 2000.
Energy-Efficient Signal Processing and Communication Algorithms for Scalable Distributed Fusion.
SENSOR NETWORKS BY Umesh Shah Mayuresh Patil G P Reddy GUIDES Prof U.B.Desai Prof S.N.Merchant.
Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks Sensor Networks Sensor Networks Directed Diffusion Directed Diffusion SPIN SPIN Ishan Banerjee
REED: Robust, Efficient Filtering and Event Detection in Sensor Networks Daniel Abadi, Samuel Madden, Wolfgang Lindner MIT United States VLDB 2005.
1 REED: Robust, Efficient Filtering and Event Detection in Sensor Networks Daniel Abadi, Samuel Madden, Wolfgang Lindner MIT United States VLDB 2005.
Communication Support for Location- Centric Collaborative Signal Processing in Sensor Networks Parmesh Ramanathan University of Wisconsin, Madison Acknowledgements:K.-C.
DATA AGGREGATION Siddhartha Sarkar Roll no: CSE-4 th Year-7 th semester Sensor Networks (CS 704D) Assignment.
BARD / April BARD: Bayesian-Assisted Resource Discovery Fred Stann (USC/ISI) Joint Work With John Heidemann (USC/ISI) April 9, 2004.
Aggregation and Secure Aggregation. Learning Objectives Understand why we need aggregation in WSNs Understand aggregation protocols in WSNs Understand.
W. Hong & S. Madden – Implementation and Research Issues in Query Processing for Wireless Sensor Networks, ICDE 2004.
Energy-Efficient Signal Processing and Communication Algorithms for Scalable Distributed Fusion.
Sensor Network Data Dissemination based on the paper titled Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks Presented.
Aggregation and Secure Aggregation. [Aggre_1] Section 12 Why do we need Aggregation? Sensor networks – Event-based Systems Example Query: –What is the.
1 TAG: A Tiny Aggregation Service for Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Samuel Madden UC Berkeley with Michael Franklin, Joseph Hellerstein, and Wei Hong December.
Building Wireless Efficient Sensor Networks with Low-Level Naming J. Heihmann, F.Silva, C. Intanagonwiwat, R.Govindan, D. Estrin, D. Ganesan Presentation.
Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks Presented by Barath Raghavan.
1 Sensor Network Routing – II Data-Centric Routing.
TAG: a Tiny AGgregation service for ad-hoc sensor networks Authors: Samuel Madden, Michael J. Franklin, Joseph M. Hellerstein, Wei Hong Presenter: Mingwei.
Wireless Sensor Networks
Wireless Sensor Networks
Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks
Demetrios Zeinalipour-Yazti (Univ. of Cyprus)
Introduction to Wireless Sensor Networks
Distributed database approach,
DIRECTED DIFFUSION.
Wireless Sensor Networks
Wireless Sensor Network Architectures
DIRECTED DIFFUSION.
Distributing Queries Over Low Power Sensor Networks
Data-Centric Networking
Aggregation.
Presentation transcript:

15-744: Computer Networking L-13 Sensor Networks

Sensor Networks Directed Diffusion Aggregation Assigned reading TAG: a Tiny AGgregation Service for Ad-Hoc Sensor Networks Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks 2

Outline Sensor Networks Directed Diffusion TAG Synopsis Diffusion 3

4 Smart-Dust/Motes First introduced in late 90’s by groups at UCB/UCLA/USC Published at Mobicom/SOSP conferences Small, resource limited devices CPU, disk, power, bandwidth, etc. Simple scalar sensors – temperature, motion Single domain of deployment (e.g. farm, battlefield, etc.) for a targeted task (find the tanks) Ad-hoc wireless network

5 Smart-Dust/Motes Hardware UCB motes Programming TinyOS Query processing TinyDB Directed diffusion Geographic hash tables Power management MAC protocols Adaptive topologies

Devices that incorporate communications, processing, sensors, and batteries into a small package Atmel microcontroller with sensors and a communication unit RF transceiver, laser module, or a corner cube reflector Temperature, light, humidity, pressure, 3 axis magnetometers, 3 axis accelerometers Berkeley Motes 6

7 Berkeley Motes (Levis & Culler, ASPLOS 02)

Sensor Net Sample Apps 8 Traditional monitoring apparatus. Earthquake monitoring in shake- test sites. Vehicle detection: sensors along a road, collect data about passing vehicles. Habitat Monitoring: Storm petrels on great duck island, microclimates on James Reserve.

9 Metric: Communication Lifetime from one pair of AA batteries 2-3 days at full power 6 months at 2% duty cycle Communication dominates cost < few mS to compute 30mS to send message

10 Communication In Sensor Nets Radio communication has high link-level losses typically about 5m Ad-hoc neighbor discovery Tree-based routing A B C D F E

Outline Sensor Networks Directed Diffusion TAG Synopsis Diffusion 11

The long term goal 12 Disaster Response Circulatory Net Embed Embed numerous distributed devices to monitor and interact with physical world: in work- spaces, hospitals, homes, vehicles, and “the environment” (water, soil, air…) Network these devices so that they can coordinate to perform higher-level tasks. Requires robust distributed systems of tens of thousands of devices.

Motivation Properties of Sensor Networks Data centric, but not node centric Have no notion of central authority Are often resource constrained Nodes are tied to physical locations, but: They may not know the topology They may fail or move arbitrarily Problem: How can we get data from the sensors? 13

Directed Diffusion Data centric – nodes are unimportant Request driven: Sinks place requests as interests Sources are eventually found and satisfy interests Intermediate nodes route data toward sinks Localized repair and reinforcement Multi-path delivery for multiple sources, sinks, and queries 14

Motivating Example Sensor nodes are monitoring a flat space for animals We are interested in receiving data for all 4- legged creatures seen in a rectangle We want to specify the data rate 15

Interest and Event Naming Query/interest: 1.Type=four-legged animal 2.Interval=20ms (event data rate) 3.Duration=10 seconds (time to cache) 4.Rect=[-100, 100, 200, 400] Reply: 1.Type=four-legged animal 2.Instance = elephant 3.Location = [125, 220] 4.Intensity = Confidence = Timestamp = 01:20:40 Attribute-Value pairs, no advanced naming scheme 16

Diffusion (High Level) Sinks broadcast interest to neighbors Interests are cached by neighbors Gradients are set up pointing back to where interests came from at low data rate Once a sensor receives an interest, it routes measurements along gradients 17

18 Illustrating Directed Diffusion Sink Source Setting up gradients Sink Source Sending data Sink Source Recovering from node failure Sink Source Reinforcing stable path

Summary Data Centric Sensors net is queried for specific data Source of data is irrelevant No sensor-specific query Application Specific In-sensor processing to reduce data transmitted In-sensor caching Localized Algorithms Maintain minimum local connectivity – save energy Achieve global objective through local coordination Its gains due to aggregation and duplicate suppression may make it more viable than ad-hoc routing in sensor networks 19

Outline Sensor Networks Directed Diffusion TAG Synopsis Diffusion 20

TAG Introduction Programming sensor nets is hard! Declarative queries are easy Tiny Aggregation (TAG): In-network processing via declarative queries In-network processing of aggregates Common data analysis operation Communication reducing Operator dependent benefit Across nodes during same epoch Exploit semantics improve efficiency! Example: Vehicle tracking application: 2 weeks for 2 students Vehicle tracking query: took 2 minutes to write, worked just as well! 21 SELECT MAX(mag) FROM sensors WHERE mag > thresh EPOCH DURATION 64ms

Basic Aggregation In each epoch: Each node samples local sensors once Generates partial state record (PSR) local readings readings from children Outputs PSR during its comm. slot. At end of epoch, PSR for whole network output at root (In paper: pipelining, grouping)

23 Illustration: Aggregation Sensor # Slot # Slot 1 SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors

24 Illustration: Aggregation Sensor # Slot # Slot 2 SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors

25 Illustration: Aggregation Sensor # Slot # Slot 3 SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors

26 Illustration: Aggregation Sensor # Slot # Slot 4 SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors

27 Illustration: Aggregation Sensor # Slot # Slot 1 SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sensors

28 Types of Aggregates SQL supports MIN, MAX, SUM, COUNT, AVERAGE Any function can be computed via TAG In network benefit for many operations E.g. Standard deviation, top/bottom N, spatial union/intersection, histograms, etc. Compactness of PSR

Taxonomy of Aggregates TAG insight: classify aggregates according to various functional properties Yields a general set of optimizations that can automatically be applied 29 PropertyExamplesAffects Partial State MEDIAN : unbounded, MAX : 1 record Effectiveness of TAG Duplicate Sensitivity MIN : dup. insensitive, AVG : dup. sensitive Routing Redundancy Exemplary vs. Summary MAX : exemplary COUNT: summary Applicability of Sampling, Effect of Loss MonotonicCOUNT : monotonic AVG : non-monotonic Hypothesis Testing, Snooping

30 Benefit of In-Network Processing Simulation Results 2500 Nodes 50x50 Grid Depth = ~10 Neighbors = ~20 Some aggregates require dramatically more state!

31 Optimization: Channel Sharing (“Snooping”) Insight: Shared channel enables optimizations Suppress messages that won’t affect aggregate E.g., MAX Applies to all exemplary, monotonic aggregates

Optimization: Hypothesis Testing Insight: Guess from root can be used for suppression E.g. ‘MIN < 50’ Works for monotonic & exemplary aggregates Also summary, if imprecision allowed How is hypothesis computed? Blind or statistically informed guess Observation over network subset 32

Optimization: Use Multiple Parents For duplicate insensitive aggregates Or aggregates that can be expressed as a linear combination of parts Send (part of) aggregate to all parents In just one message, via broadcast Decreases variance 33 A BC A BC A BC 1 A BC A BC 1/2

34 Multiple Parents Results Better than previous analysis expected! Losses aren’t independent! Insight: spreads data over many links Critical Link! No Splitting With Splitting

Outline Sensor Networks Directed Diffusion TAG Synopsis Diffusion 35

36 Aggregation in Wireless Sensors Aggregate data is often more important Count = In-network aggregation over tree with unreliable communication Not robust against node- or link-failures Used by current systems, TinyDB [Madden et al. OSDI’02] Cougar [Bonnet et al. MDM’01] 10

37 Traditional Approach Reliable communication E.g., RMST over Directed Diffusion [Stann’03] High resource overhead 3x more energy consumption 3x more latency 25% less channel capacity Not suitable for resource constrained sensors

38 Exploiting Broadcast Medium Robust multi-path Energy-efficient Count =  Double-counting  Different ordering  Challenge: order and duplicate insensitivity (ODI) 10 Challenge

39 A Naïve ODI Algorithm Goal: count the live sensors in the network id Bit vector

40 Synopsis Diffusion (SenSys’04) Goal: count the live sensors in the network id Bit vector Boolean OR Count 1 bits 4 Synopsis should be small Approximate COUNT algorithm: logarithmic size bit vector Challenge

41 Synopsis Diffusion over Rings Each node transmits once = optimal energy cost (same as Tree) Ring 2 A node is in ring i if it is i hops away from the base- station Broadcasts by nodes in ring i are received by neighbors in ring i -1

42 Evaluation Approximate COUNT with Synopsis Diffusion SchemeEnergy Tree41.8 mJ Syn. Diff.42.1 mJ More robust than Tree Almost as energy efficient as Tree Per node energy Typical loss rates

Next Lecture No lecture on Wednesday Data center networks on Friday Required readings PortLand: A Scalable Fault-Tolerant Layer 2 Data Center Network Fabric [Sigcomm09] Safe and Effective Fine-grained TCP Retransmissions for Datacenter Communication [Sigcomm09] 43

Midterm Below 50 – cause for concern 44

Particular Issues A – 26/40 Fate sharing B (XCP) – 4/13  C (CSMA) – 11.5/15 D (ETX/EXoR) – 13/14 E (BGP) – 15/17 45

Feedback (more of) Routing, Security (2), Wireless, Supercomputer, Machine learning Discussion boards/paper review (2) Student presentation (2) Historic/modern mix Hands-on questions in HW, exam practice, add references (4) In-class demos Video (4) 46

Feedback (change) Early overview (lecture, or student) (2) Student presentation feed redundant, too long, not useful (4) More discussion in student presentation Forum interaction Project help (11/3 and 11/4) Slide printouts in advance (will post by noon) Optional readings – clarify who they are for Project status page More HW/proj and less exam (2) Background recitations 47

48

Design Considerations 49

Directed Diffusion (Data) Sensors match signature waveforms from codebook against observations Sensors match data against interest cache, compute highest event rate request from all gradients, and (re) sample events at this rate Receiving node: Finds matching entry in interest cache, no match – silent drop Checks and updates data cache (loop prevention, aggregation) Retrieve all gradients, and resend message, doing frequency conversion if necessasry 50

Directed Diffusion (Reinforcement) Reinforcement: Data-driven rules unseen msg. from neighbor  resend original with smaller interval This neighbor, in turn, reinforces upstream nodes Passive reinforcement handling (timeout) or active (weights) 51

Approach Energy is the bottleneck resource And communication is a major consumer--avoid communication over long distances Pre-configuration and global knowledge are not applicable Achieve desired global behavior through localized interactions Empirically adapt to observed environment Leverage points Small-form-factor nodes, densely distributed to achieve Physical locality to sensed phenomena Application-specific, data-centric networks Data processing/aggregation inside the network 52

Directed Diffusion Concepts Application-aware communication primitives expressed in terms of named data (not in terms of the nodes generating or requesting data) Consumer of data initiates interest in data with certain attributes Nodes diffuse the interest towards producers via a sequence of local interactions This process sets up gradients in the network which channel the delivery of data Reinforcement and negative reinforcement used to converge to efficient distribution Intermediate nodes opportunistically fuse interests, aggregate, correlate or cache data 53

54 Query Propagation SELECT COUNT(*)… Epoch Comm. Slot

55 Synopsis Diffusion (SenSys’04) Synopsis Diffusion: a general framework CountUniform Sample Sum (Average)Iceberg queries Distinct countTop-k items Synopsis Diffusion algorithms

56 Aggregation Framework As in extensible databases, we support any aggregation function conforming to: Agg n ={f init, f merge, f evaluate } f init {a 0 }  F merge {, }  F evaluate { }  aggregate value (Merge associative, commutative!) Example: Average AVG init {v}  AVG merge {, }  AVG evaluate { }  S/C Partial State Record (PSR)