[aprssig] Local Event using RELAY?
Henk de Groot
henk.de.groot at hetnet.nl
Sat Apr 2 15:37:00 EST 2005
AE5PL Lists schreef:
> But the numbers you espoused from the ALOHA project are not about
> channel access only but about their findings with retries.
Here is a part from the book "Computer Networks" by Andrew S. Tanenbaum. I
see you are correct, the 18.4% is about the *datalink* utilisation (the
ALOHA channel, not the RF channel); how much data can be transported over
this data connection when the RF channel access uses pure ALOHA. So on RF
you would see at least 18.4% worth of packets that actually make it to the
other side without damage plus all the packets that are corrupted along
the way and therefore do occupy the RF channel but do not contribute to
the amount of successfully transported data packets on the datalink layer.
So the utilisation of the RF channel must be (much) higher than the
frequently quoted 18.4% in order to get the "optimal" datalink utilisation
of 18.4%.
Thanks for making me read this text again.
Kind regards,
Henk.
P.S. text is in courier, I have no idea if the formulas and picutures
make sense using another font...
Sorry I can't show Figure 6.3, is not doable in ASCII...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.1.2. Pure ALOHA and Slotted ALOHA
In the early 1970s, Norman Abramson (1970, 1973a, 1973b, 1977) and his
colleagues at the University of Hawaii devised a new and elegant method to
solve this problem. Their work has been extended by many researchers since
then (Binder et al., 1975; Carleial and Hellman, 1975; Ferguson, 1975b;
Lam, 1974; and Roberts, 1973, to name just a few). Although Abramson's
work, called the ALOHA system, used ground based radio packet broadcasting
rather than satellite packet broadcasting, the basic idea is applicable to
any system in which uncoordinated users are competing for the use of a
single shared channel. Nevertheless, there are some important differences
between ground radio packet broadcasting and satellite packet radio
broadcasting (notably the propagation delay). We will examine ground radio
in general, and the University of Hawaii ALOHA system in particular, later
in this chapter.
The basic idea of an ALOHA system is simple: just let the users transmit
whenever they have data to be sent. There will be collisions, of course,
and the colliding packets will be destroyed. However, due to the perfect
feedback property of packet broadcasting, the sender of a packet can
always find out whether or not his packet was destroyed by just listening
to the downward rain of packets one round trip time after sending the
packet. If the packet was destroyed, the sender just waits a random amount
of time and sends it again. The waiting time must be random or the same
packets will collide over and over, in lockstep. Systems in which multiple
users share a common channel in a way that can lead to conflicts are
widely known as *contention* systems.
A sketch of packet generation in an ALOHA system is given in Fig. 6 1. We
have made the packets all the same length because it has been shown that
the throughput of ALOHA systems is maximized by having a uniform packet
size rather than allowing variable length packets (Abramson, 1977;
Ferguson, 1975a; Gaarder, 1972).
User
------------------------------------------------
A [==] [==]
------------------------------------------------
B [==]
------------------------------------------------
C [==] [==] [==]
------------------------------------------------
D [==] [==] [==] [==]
------------------------------------------------
E [==] [==] [==]
------------------------------------------------
Fig. 6-1. In pure ALOHA, packets are transmitted at completely
arbitrary times.
Whenever two packets try to occupy the channel at the same time there will
be a collision and both will be garbled. You should realize that if the
first bit of a new packet overlaps with just the last bit of a packet
almost finished, both packets will be totally destroyed, and both will
have to be retransmitted later. The checksum cannot (and should not)
distinguish between a total loss and a near miss. Bad is bad.
A most interesting question is: What is the throughput of an ALOHA
channel? Let us first consider an infinite collection of interactive users
sitting at their terminals. A user is always in one of two states:
thinking or blocked. Initially, all users are in the thinking state.
Whenever someone decides what to do next, he types a line of text followed
by a carriage return. At this point he is blocked and stops thinking. The
microcomputer inside the terminal immediately locks the keyboard to
prevent any more input. It then sends a packet containing the line to the
satellite and waits R sec to see if it was successful. If so, the user's
keyboard is unlocked. If not, the keyboard remains locked, and the packet
is retransmitted over and over until it is successfully sent.
Let the "packet time" denote the amount of time needed to transmit the
standard, fixed length packet (i.e., the packet length divided by the bit
rate). At this point we assume that the infinite population of users
generates new packets according to a Poisson distribution with mean S
packets per packet time. (The infinite population assumption is needed to
ensure that S does not decrease as users become blocked.) If S > 1, the
user community is generating packets at a higher rate than the channel can
handle, and nearly every packet will suffer a collision. For reasonable
throughput we would expect 0 < S < 1.
In addition to the new packets, the users also generate retransmissions of
packets that previously suffered collisions. Let us further assume that
the probability of k transmission attempts per packet time, old and new
combined, is also Poisson, with mean G per packet time. Clearly, G >= S.
At low load (i.e., S ~= 0), there will be few collisions, hence few
retransmissions, so G ~= S. At high load there will be many collisions, so
G > S. Under all loads, the throughput is just the offered load, G, times
the probability of a transmission being successful that is, S = GPo, where
Po is the probability that a packet does not suffer a collision.
A packet will not suffer a collision if no other packets are sent within
one packet time of its start, as shown in Fig. 6 2. Under what conditions
will the shaded packet arrive undamaged? If any other user has generated a
packet between t0 and t0 + t the end of that packet will collide with the
beginning of the shaded one. In fact, the shaded packet's fate was already
sealed even before the first bit was sent, but due to the long propagation
delay, it has no way of knowing that another packet was already underway.
Similarly, any other packet started between t0 + t and t0 + 2t will bump
into the end of the shaded packet.
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| | | | | |
| +--------------+ +--------------+ |
| ^ +--------------+ |
| Collides with |//////////////| Collides with |
| the start of +--------------+ the end of |
| the shaded | | the shaded |
| packet | | packet |
t0 t0 + t t0 + 2t t0 + 3t
Fig. 6-2. Vulnerable period for the shaded packet.
The probability that k packets are generated during a given packet time is
given by the Poisson distribution:
k -G
G e
Pr[kl = -------
k!
-G
so the probability of zero packets is just e . In an interval two packet
times long, the mean number of packets generated is 2G. The probability of
no other traffic being initiated during the entire vulnerable period is
thus given by
-G
Po = e . Using S = GPo, we get
-2G
S = Ge
This result was first derived by Abramson (1970).
The throughput offered traffic relation is shown in Fig. 6 3. The maximum
throughput occurs at G = 0.5, with S = 1/(2e), which is about 0.184. In
other words, the best we can hope for is a channel utilization of 18%.
This result is not very encouraging, but with everyone transmitting
whenever he wants to, we could hardly have expected a 100% success rate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the aprssig
mailing list