diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | 2019-ICA3PP.org | 41 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2019-ICA3PP.pdf | bin | 688787 -> 0 bytes |
2 files changed, 35 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/2019-ICA3PP.org b/2019-ICA3PP.org index 9ef1151..63f6536 100644 --- a/2019-ICA3PP.org +++ b/2019-ICA3PP.org @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ and transmission technologies. \centering \caption{Simulations Energy Parameters} \label{tab:wifi-energy} - \subtable[Wifi]{ + \subtable[IoT part]{ \begin{tabular}{@{}lr@{}} Parameter & Value \\ \midrule Supply Voltage & 3.3V \\ @@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ and transmission technologies. Idle & 0.273A \\ \bottomrule \end{tabular}} \hspace{0.3cm} - \subtable[Network]{ + \subtable[Network part]{ \label{tab:net-energy} \begin{tabular}{@{}lr@{}} Parameter & Value \\ \midrule @@ -567,7 +567,14 @@ In our case with small and sporadic network traffic, these results show that wit other IoT devices belonging to the same application and the server hosting the VM also hosts other VMs. Furthermore, the server belongs to a data center and takes part in the overall - energy drawn to cool the server room. + energy drawn to cool the server room. + + Concerning the IoT part, we include the entire IoT device power + consumption. Indeed, in our targeted low-bandwidth IoT application, + the sensor is dedicated to this application. From Table + \ref{tab:wifi-energy}, one can derive that the static power + consumption of one IoT sensor is around 0.9 Watts. Its dynamic part + depends on the transmission frequency. Concerning the sharing of the network costs, for each router, we consider its aggregate bandwidth (on all the ports), its average @@ -582,10 +589,12 @@ In our case with small and sporadic network traffic, these results show that wit where $P_{static}^{device}$ is the static power consumption of the network device (switch fabrics for instance or gateway), - $Bandwidth^{application }$ is the bandwidth used by our IoT application, + $Bandwidth^{application }$ Is the bandwidth used by our IoT application, $AggregateBandwidth^{device }$ is the overall aggregated bandwidth of the network device on all its ports, and $LinkUtilization^{device}$ is the - effective link utilization percentage. The formula includes the + effective link utilization percentage. The $Bandwidth^{application }$ + depends on the transmission frequency in our use-case. + The formula includes the link utilization in order to charge for the effective energy cost per trafic and not for the theoretical upper bound which is the link bandwidth. Indeed, using such an upper bound leads to greatly @@ -595,7 +604,27 @@ In our case with small and sporadic network traffic, these results show that wit Similarly, for each network port, we take the share attributable to our application: the ratio of our bandwidth utilization over the port bandwidth multiplied by the link utilization and the overall - static power consumption of the port. + static power consumption of the port. Table \ref{tab:netbidules} + summarizes the parameters used in our model, they are taken from + \cite{mahadevan_power_2009}. + + + #+BEGIN_EXPORT latex + \begin{table}[] + \centering + \caption{Network Devices Parameters} + \label{tab:netbidules} + \begin{tabular}{l|l} + Device & ~Parameters \\ \midrule + Gateway & ~Static power = 8.3 Watts, Bandwidth = 54Mbps, Utilization = 10\% \\ + Core router & ~Static power = 555 Watts, 48 ports of 1 Gbps, Utilization = 25\% \\ + Edge switch~ & ~Static power = 150 Watts, 48 ports of 1 Gbps, Utilization = 25\% \\ + \bottomrule + \end{tabular}} + \end{table} + #+END_EXPORT + + For the sharing of the Cloud costs, we take into account the number of VMs that a server can host, the CPU utilization of a VM and the diff --git a/2019-ICA3PP.pdf b/2019-ICA3PP.pdf Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b3adb41..0000000 --- a/2019-ICA3PP.pdf +++ /dev/null |