1. Simulation Results for QoS, pDCF, VDCF, Backoff/Retry
January 2001
Simulation Results for QoS, pDCF, VDCF, Backoff/Retry
Greg Chesson
Aman Singla
Atheros Communications
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

2. Outline Backoff/Retry/Access Methods Backoff:
January 2001
Outline
Backoff/Retry/Access Methods
Backoff:
constant (non-increasing)
exponential (doubling)
hybrid (doubling only after first retry)
Access Methods: DCF, pDCF
QoS Scenarios
Pair of 1 Mbyte/s Mpeg streams plus background load
Sim Group: 10/20/30-node scenario at 11 Mb/s
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

3. Backoff Scenarios January 2001 Node 1 Simulate 3 backoff methods
No backoff increase on retry
Exponential backoff
Hybrid (increase backoff after first retry)
Simulate both pDCF and DCF
36 Mb/s PHY, CW=15,PP=.12
For each combination of backoff and MAC
Simulate with 2 thru 12 nodes
60 total runs
No upper layer protocol or application
Heavy offered load
Fully backlogged queues
Plot
Goodput (aggregate bandwidth)
Collisions
Channel idle time
Latency/Jitter
Node 2 AP
Node 0
Node 12
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

4. January 2001
Backoff Results
constant backoff => high collision rate, reduced bandwidth, more congestion
Exponential backoff => gradual degradation
Hybrid backoff => close to exponential performance
These conclusions should not be controversial as they support the conventional wisdom.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

5. January 2001
MAC Results
Goodput: pDCF slightly better than DCF (~4%) because aggressive access technique improves channel efficiency at the expense of more variable channel access wait times.
Latency/Jitter: DCF better than pDCF because TxOPs are more evenly distributed between stations (even for a 2-station scenario!).
Explanation: study expected MAC access delay times per station.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

6. Goodput January 2001 pDCF DCF Channel hybrid saturation pDCF DCF
Steep dropoff
If constant backoff
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

7. Collision time for constant backoff
January 2001
Collision time for constant backoff
hybrid
Exponential
backoff
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

8. 1 station 2 stations n stations
January 2001
pDCF
1 station 2 stations n stations
DCF
1 stations 2 stations
pDCF shows ~3X latency/jitter for 2 stations, why?
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

9. Plot % time that another station gets 1, 2, 3, … TxOPs before you.
January 2001
Plot % time that another station gets 1, 2, 3, … TxOPs before you.
That is, how many times do you lose before winning a TxOP?
Ideal curve for 2 stations centers about 1.
stations alternate accesses
would defer (lose) only once per transmission
Majority of DCF(CW=15) samples lie within ideal curve
pDCF (PP=.12) show 50% of samples are back-to-back.
Thus, pDCF stations see greater latency variance (jitter).
Sometimes you lose 4 or more times.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

10. Ideal curve for 5 stations centers about 4.
January 2001
Ideal curve for 5 stations centers about 4.
Neither pDCF nor DCF are ideal, but only
20% of DCF transmission are back-to-back from
The same station compared to 30% for pDCF.
Difference increase with more stations.
Jitter increases with more stations.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

11. Conclusions Exponential backoff essential for robustness
January 2001
Conclusions
Exponential backoff essential for robustness
DCF(CW) equals pDCF(PP=2/(CW+1))
pDCF achieves slightly more bandwidth
pDCF introduces much more jitter
pDCF(adaptive PP) equals DCF(adaptive CW)
Set CW=2/PP – 1
After adaptation: same bandwidth/jitter differences
No compelling reason to change basic access method
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

12. Qos Simulations Video scenario: 2 1-Mbyte/sec streams plus load
January 2001
Qos Simulations
Video scenario: 2 1-Mbyte/sec streams plus load
AP sends to 2 stations
4 additional stations generating high load
TCP load (tcp data and tcp acks forward thru AP)
unconstrained UDP load (AP acts as infinite sink)
Plot bandwidth, latency, packet drops for
DCF
AP with packet scheduler (only)
VDCF
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

13. Video splits bandwidth at first. Then tcp streams start.
January 2001
Video splits bandwidth at first.
Then tcp streams start.
Packets are dropped from truncated fifos (IFQ drops).
No packets are dropped for excessive MAC retransmission.
Behavior is worse with UDP background load (next slide).
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

14. Many more dropped packets. Caused by high latencies (next slide).
January 2001
Many more dropped packets.
Caused by high latencies (next slide).
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

15. Latency unsatisfactory for the application.
January 2001
Latency unsatisfactory for the application.
UDP flows have more latency because the small UDP packets
Are usually waiting for the larger video frames.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

16. AP Scheduling Add priority packet scheduling to AP
January 2001
AP Scheduling
Add priority packet scheduling to AP
Video packets jump to head of queue(-5)
Assume 5 packets committed to hardware
Video can bypass all but 5
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

17. Bandwidth plot for AP priority queue-only configuration.
January 2001
Bandwidth plot for AP priority queue-only configuration.
No other MAC QoS needed for this scenario.
Demonstrates capability of AP queuing to control traffic.
Majority of traffic passes through AP in many (but not all) environments.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

18. Latency with priority queue-only configuration.
January 2001
Latency with priority queue-only configuration.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

19. AP queue-only configuration is less effective with UDP load.
January 2001
AP queue-only configuration is less effective with UDP load.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

20. Adding VDCF TCP load Increases bandwidth slightly Improves latency
January 2001
Adding VDCF
TCP load
Increases bandwidth slightly
Improves latency
UDP (raw) load
Provides differentiated bandwidth
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

21. January 2001
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

22. Video stream latency with VDCF with TCP load
January 2001
Video stream latency with VDCF with TCP load
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

23. Video streams latency with VDCF and UDP load.
January 2001
Video streams latency with VDCF and UDP load.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

24. Sim Group Scenario 30 active stations on 11 Mb/s phy
January 2001
Sim Group Scenario
30 active stations on 11 Mb/s phy
3 traffic classes: High, Medium, Low
Objective: 2/2/2 differentiated bandwidth
Plot goodput, latency, drops for
DCF-only baseline
VDCF with two parameter sets
32 active stations
Add two stations in a 4th traffic class: X-High
Use PIFS instead of DIFS
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

25. 10 active stations 20 stations 30 stations
January 2001
Baseline DCF Goodput
10 active stations stations 30 stations
3 Mb/s load 6 MB/s load 9 Mb/s load (meltdown)
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

26. Plot both offered load and DCF Goodput.
January 2001
Plot both offered load and DCF Goodput.
Goodput closely overlays the random exponential load generation except in overload.
Generated load
goodput
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

27. Same scenario with conservative VDCF parameters.
January 2001
Same scenario with conservative VDCF parameters.
Observe nearly 2X differentiated bandwidth for 10 and 20 station loads only.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

28. No packet drops for high-priority class.
January 2001
Aggressive VDCF
No packet drops for high-priority class.
IFQ drops constrained to lower classes during overload.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

29. January 2001
Latency experienced by a selected high-priority stream (first 60 seconds)
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

30. VDCF can differentiate latency using CO.
January 2001
VDCF can differentiate latency using CO.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

31. PIFS Add two sources using PIFS rather than DIFS
January 2001
PIFS
Add two sources using PIFS rather than DIFS
Each generates 1504 byte packets every 30ms
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

32. X-High class has low latency even in overload
January 2001
X-High class has low latency even in overload
(need zoomed-in view to see)
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

33. X-High class sees preferential Access at all times.
January 2001
X-High class sees preferential
Access at all times.
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications

34. Conclusions VDCF provides differentiated bandwidth
January 2001
Conclusions
VDCF provides differentiated bandwidth
using conservative parameters
Even in overload situation
CO can influence latency differentiation between classes
Constant CO/CW settings for each 90 second simulation:
Default (conservative) settings are useful
adaptation can improve performance
Real-time adaptation probably unnecessary with VDCF
PIFS experiment demonstrates value for AP
For polling, other preferential access
Greg Chesson, et al, Atheros Communications