Abstract
The fundamental WSN requirement to be energy-efficient has produced a whole range of specialized Medium Access Control (MAC) protocols. They differ in how performance (latency, throughput) is traded off for a reduction in energy consumption. The question “which protocol is best?” is difficult to answer because (i) this depends on specific details of the application requirements and hardware characteristics involved, and (ii) protocols have mainly been assessed individually with each outperforming the canonical S-MAC protocol, but with different simulators, hardware platforms, and workloads. This article addresses that void for low data-rate applications where collisions are of little concern, making an analytical approach tractable in which latency and energy consumption are modeled as a function of key protocol parameters (duty cycle, slot length, number of slots, etc.). By exhaustive search we determine the Pareto-optimal protocol settings for a given workload (data rate, network topology). Of the protocols compared we find that WiseMAC strikes the best latency vs. energy-consumption trade-off across the range of workloads considered. In particular, its random access scheme in combination with local synchronization does not only minimize protocol overhead, but also maximizes the available channel bandwidth.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
