JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.

ORG

236

A Priority based Scheduling Algorithm to Improve Quality of Service from Safety perspective in VANET
Esmaeili teamour* Department of Computer Engineering DareShahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran Mahmood Fathy Computer Enginnering School, Iran University of science and technology Narmak, Tehran, Iran, Hossein Ghaffarian Computer Enginnering School, Iran University of science and technology Narmak, Tehran, Iran,
Abstract in this paper a new scheduling algorithm is proposed to satisfy quality of service levels for different classes of applications based on their necessities. Currently, there are lots of applications with different levels of safety. However, safety applications must served in a short time; because they are critical for safety in driving. Therefore we classified applications of VANET into four different classes from safety perspective. Then, a greedy scheduler is proposed to serve traffics with higher level of priority sooner than other traffics. Simulation results of NS2 shows that the proposed approach could prepare a better performance than the standard approach with respect to safety levels. Keywords- VANET, scheduling, safety, priority.

several projects like Diesel Net in USA [1], Fleet Net in Germany [2] and Internet CAR in Japan [3].

INTRODUCTION

In the new age, digital communication has important rule in different industries. In the past decades, rate of accidents and other dangerous events along the roads are increased. Communicating between vehicles can improve safety and convenience. For example, in the case of accident and traffic jam, drivers can decided to change their traveling path before reaching to the accident zone. Vehicular Ad hoc Network (VANET) is a new generation of ad hoc networks which is implemented on vehicles. Overall architecture of a typical VANET is presented in figure 1[12]. As shown in this figure, vehicles can communicate together (Vehicle to Vehicle or V2V) or with Road Side Units (RSU) to access other networks (Vehicle to Infrastructure or V2I). Using RSUs, vehicles communicate with other vehicles in various zones and Internet. Different vehicular networks are implemented in

Figure 1- Overall architecture of VANET[12].

Communication types of VANETs can be categorized into two different modes: Pull mode and Push mode[13]. In the pull mode an application requests from a specific destination and responder replies with appropriate information. Such communication is happened when vehicles request traffic information. Traffic control centers reply each request individually. In the push mode, a specific application in a node detects a special event; the node will distribute received information

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

237

in the network without any requests. Distributing information of suddenly breaking is an example of this type. Also, applications in VANET can be categorized into four different classes: safety, decreasing traffic rate, comfort and local information changing[14]. Safety applications are most important applications in VANET. The goal of these applications is to prepare vital information for safety when a non-safety situation happens. Using decreasing traffic rate applications, vehicles can inform other vehicles about traffic jams; so, newly arrived vehicles can change their paths if it be possible. Comfort applications like on-line games, instant messaging, connecting to the Internet and so on, can make happier travels. Finally, local information changing is useful for drivers to find road side facilities. For example, gathering information about hotels, gas pumps and car parks can be achieved by this type of applications. In this paper we proposed a new scheduling algorithm to satisfy quality of service levels in different classes of applications in VANET. As mentioned above, some classes have critical information, from safety perspective; however, some other classes are not too critical. Because of importance of safety in VANET, it is important to prepare different levels of service for various applications. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: in the part 2, we prepared an overview on related works. Section 3 consists of detail information about the proposed approach. Simulation results are presented in section 4 and finally, the paper is concluded in section 5.

RELATED WORKS

In this part, we reviewed some related approach in the scheduling area in VANET. Then our proposed classification for VANET, from safety perspective, is presented. In references [4-7] some algorithms for scheduling in broadcast situations are proposed which are aware about the reducing waiting time and power consuming. In these papers, authors did not regard to size of requested data. This shortage is considered in [8]. Authors of [8] proposed a new approach to schedule variable data size packets in broadcast conditions. They proposed parameter s which is represented rate of response time to service time. Using this parameter, they proposed Longest Total Stretch First (LTSF) to balance worse case and mid case situations. In [9] quality of service and quality of data are considered. Their proposed approach is suitable for P2P application and has problems in broadcast environments. It is important that although in the above approaches authors focused on fairness, waiting time and so on; they did not consider response time restrictions. In VANETs, because of high speed, network topologies are changed continually. In [10] and [11], authors focused on the scheduling for real time applications with restricted reaction times. In [10], authors focused on push mode applications and did not aware about the on-demand applications; however, in [11], on-demand applications were involved. In these algorithms authors supposed that data are read only or servers are updated; therefore they tried to increased the rate of services for downloads. Although other scheduling algorithms, like First Come First Serve (FCFS), First Deadline First (FDF) and Smallest Data size First (SDF), suppose similar priority between different requests; request of safety applications must receive higher priorities than non-safety applications. If safety requests did not serve in the appropriate time, they may cause dangerous situations. More, safety requests have different degrees of priority which are involved in this paper. Some of currently proposed methods focused on increasing service rate and did not aware about the quality of these services. In this paper we refer to quality of service; however, this may starvation in servicing other applications; but reaching to the safety goals in VANET legitimize this. Using approaches to increasing quality of service versus approaches to increasing quantity of service, in safety applications, is important. There are many applications with different levels of safety in VANETs. If these applications run with same priorities, it may some of them did not serve in the appropriate time. It seems that to increasing safety in vehicles, applications must classified based on their safety levels. Applications in higher levels must served before the others and non-safety and comfort applications must served after safety applications. Even, it is possible to classify safety applications too. As shown in table 1, with respect to safety requirements, we classified VANET applications into four different categories. Class 1 has the highest priority to service and class 4 has the lowest priority.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

238

Table 1- Classifying applications of VANET from safety perspective.

part receives new packet and rearrange packets in the queues based on time restrictions of the packets. Packets with shortest deadline will serve first. A packet in the head of queue x will serve if and only if there is not any packets in the queues with higher degree of priorities. For example, packet in the head of queue 3 will serve, if and only if queues 1 and 2 be empty. This strategy will confirm to serving high priority packets in the shortest time. Although such method can cause starvation in the queues with lowest priorities; significant of safety in the driving can cover this shortage.

SIMULATION RESULTS

To evaluate the proposed approach, we used NS.2. Table 2 shows used simulation parameters. We simulate a road with 1000 meters length, vehicles with 20 m/s velocity and 250 meters communication range. MAC type of transmitters is IEEE 802.11 and traffic type is CBR.

THE PROPOSED APPROACH

In this part we explain details of the proposed method which it tries to serve packets with high level of safety at least. As mentioned before, applications of VANET have different levels of safety before other packets. Messages of VANET in the memory of a vehicle can be classified into two categories: messages created by the vehicle itself and messages created by other vehicles which are candidate to transmit by the vehicle. However, some times, there is not enough space in the memory of the vehicle or there is not enough bandwidth to transmit packets. To reach the goal of quality in safety applications, we need two parts. First, we need a Priority field in each packet. This field can be used to indicate the priority of the packet. TOS bits of IP packets can be used for this reason or especial bits can be added into packets. Second, we need to insert a customized scheduling system in communicating tools of VANET for scheduling arrived messages and internal ones. Figure 2 depicts the architecture of this scheduler. Scheduler D et
S e

Table 2- Simulation parameters.

Parameter Simulation time Road length Velocity of vehicles Communication range MAC type Traffic type Routing protocol Value 60 s 1000 meters 20 m/s 250 m IEEE 802.11 CBR AODV

Scheduler D et
S e

We repeat our simulations for standard model and the proposed model. As shown in figure 3, lack of priority between different messages caused unfair serving. While traffic type 1 has the highest priority for safety, its throughput is lower than traffic type 4 which it has lowest priority from safety aspects. Also, traffic type 2 has the minimum performance. Figure 4 depicts the throughput evaluation of the proposed greedy approach. Against the standard approach, it can be seen that packets received fair amount of bandwidth based on their safety priorities using this algorithm.

Re cei

In te

Re cei

In te

Figure 2- Architecture of proposed message scheduler.

The scheduler consists of two parts. First part is a subsystem for queuing packets according to the type of packets and second part is a subsystem for queuing packets according to the time restrictions. The first part is responsible to define the target queue of each packet based on Priority field and enter the packet in the selected queue. The second

Figure 3- Throughput evaluation of the standard approach.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, JUNE 2012, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617 https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

239

Figure 6- Packet loss rate evaluation of the proposed algorithm.

CONCLUSION

There are lots of applications in VANET. However, they have not same level of safety. Some of applications are critical from safety perspectives and some of them are not. Therefore, it is necessary to classify these applications from each other and serve them with respect to their priorities. In this paper we proposed a greedy algorithm to ensure that traffics of high priority application in safety will serve in the appropriate time. Simulation results confirmed the effects of our proposed approach. While safety applications reach more bandwidths, they had less packet loss ratios too.
Figure 4- Throughput evaluation of the proposed algorithm.

REFERENCES

Another interesting parameter in this area is packet loss ration. While a packet loss rate of one application increases, its quality and quantity of service will decrease. As shown in figure 5, packet loss rate in the standard situations is not fair. While non-safety applications lost less packets, safety applications met high packet loss rates. In figure 6, the behavior of the proposed approach is shown. As depicted in this figure, safety applications have minor packet loss than non-safety applications.

[1] Balasubramanian A, Levine BN, Venkataramani A Enhancing interactive web applications in hybrid networks. In: Proceedings of MobiCom 08, pp 70 80(2008) [2] Enkelmann W Fleetnet - applications for inter vehicle communication. In: Proceedings of IEEE IV, pp 162 167(2003) [3] Ernst T, Uehara K, Mitsuya K Network mobility from the internet car perspective. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on advanced information networking and applications, Washington, DC (2003) [4] Jiang S, Vaidya N Scheduling data broadcast to impatient users. In: Proceedings of MobiDE 99, pp 52 59(1999) [5] Xu J, Tang X, Lee W Time-critical on-demand data broadcast: algorithms, analysis, and performance evaluation. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 17:3 14(2006) [6] Su C, Tassiulas L Broadcast scheduling for information distribution. In: Proceeding of INFOCOM (1997) [7] Vaidya N, Hameed S Scheduling data broadcast in asymemetric communication environments. Wirel Netw 5:183 193(1999) [8] Gandhi R, Khuller S, Kim Y, Wan Y Algorithms for minimizing response time in broadcast scheduling. Algorithmica 38(4):597 608(2004)

Figure 5- Packet loss rate evaluation of the standard approach.

[9] Aksoy D, Franklin M R*w: a scheduling approach for large-scale ondemand data broadcast. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 7:846 860(1999) [10] Acharya S, Muthukrishnan S Scheduling on-demand broadcasts: new metrics and algorithms. In: Proceeding of MobiCom 98 (1998) [11]. Qu H, Labrinidis A Preference-aware query and update scheduling in web-databases. In: Proceedings of ICDE 07, pp 356 365(2007) [12] CAR 2 CAR Communication Consortium Manifesto version 1.1. Technical report,CAR 2 CAR Communication Consortium (C2C-CC), Aug 2007. Available through http://www.car-to-car.org [13]Andrew S. Tanenbaum and Maarten van Steen. Distributed Systems:Principles and Paradigms. Prentice Hall, 1 edition, 2002. [14] Y Do, S Buchegger, T Alpcan, and J P Hubaux. Centrality Analysis in Vehicular Networks. Technical report, 2008.