J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany

Using Area Hierarchy for

Multi-Resolution Storage
and Search in Large
Wireless Sensor Networks
Konrad Iwanicki and Maarten van Steen
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
The Netherlands
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 2
Introduction
Many sensor network applications require:
large numbers of sensor nodes
continuously collecting data from the
surrounding environment.
Examples:
habitat and microclimate monitoring,
precision agriculture,
structural monitoring,
asset tracking.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 3
Fidelity vs. scalability
Such an amount of data forces a trade-off
between:
system scalability
data fidelity
Centralized data-collection mechanisms
generally scale poorly beyond tens of nodes.
Better scalability requires in-network aggregation.
In-network aggregation, however, precludes high
data fidelity:
One can query the aggregate reading for the whole
network, but not the readings of individual sensors.
Low data fidelity is inadequate in many large-scale
applications of sensor networks.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 4
Principal idea
Provide scalable adaptive data fidelity:
explore the trade-off between the system
scalability and the data fidelity.
Employ a distributed multi-resolution
storage and search mechanisms:
Each sensor node participates in a distributed
storage system.
The storage system is based on a multi-level
recursive overlay that enables:
In-network aggregation,
Querying.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 5
Multi-resolution aggregation
Coarsest
Resolution
(Level 2)
Finer
Resolution
(Level 1)
Finest
Resolution
(Level 0)
Compressed data from
Level 1 is decompressed
and re-compressed jointly
with higher compression
factor. This jointly
compressed data
is forwarded up
the hierarchy.
Spatial
Aggregation
Temporal
Aggregation
Raw data of a node is temporarily
aggregated at the node.
level-2 aggregator
level-1 aggregators
Source: Ganesan et al. Multiresolution storage and search in sensor networks,
ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 1, no. 3, p. 277-315, August 2005.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 6
Drill-down querying
Source: Ganesan et al. Multiresolution storage and search in sensor networks,
ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 1, no. 3, p. 277-315, August 2005.
Coarsest
Resoluti on
(Level 2)
Finer
Resolution
(Level 1)
Fi nest
Resolution
(Level 0)
The query is processed on the available
view of data and is forwarded to
the region that is most likely
to satisfy the query.
A query is first addressed
to the root of
the hierarchy.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 7
Problems
The current design is based on geographic
coordinates:
the overlay is a quad tree
aggregates and queries use geographic routing
Problems (untrue assumption that geographic
proximity implies connectivity):
Special mechanisms to handle different cases.
Difficulty of porting geographic routing to three
dimensions.
Special localization hardware or algorithms.
Can we use a different network organization?
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 8
Our approach
Observation:
Connectivity usually implies proximity.
Employ a network organization based on
actual physical connectivity rather than
artificial geographic coordinates:
Area hierarchy.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 9
Area Hierarchy
Area hierarchy based on connectivity, nodes self-organize into a multi-level
hierarchy of nested network areas. This is a basis for:
Naming
Routing.
P
L
I
B
Q
G
K
C
R
E
D
J
H
F
O
M
N
A
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 10
Area Hierarchy
Area hierarchy based on connectivity, nodes self-organize into a multi-level
hierarchy of nested network areas. This is a basis for:
Naming
Routing.
P.L
L.L
I.H
B.G
Q.G
G.G
K.G
C.G
R.G
E.G
D.D
J .D
H.H
F.H
O.H
M.H
N.H
A.L
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 11
Area Hierarchy
Area hierarchy based on connectivity, nodes self-organize into a multi-level
hierarchy of nested network areas. This is a basis for:
Naming
Routing.
P.L.G
L.L.G
I.H.G
B.G.G
Q.G.G
G.G.G
K.G.G
C.G.G
R.G.G
E.G.G
D.D.G
J .D.G
H.H.G
F.H.G
O.H.G
M.H.G
N.H.G
A.L.G
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 12
Aggregation
Each node is a head of a group at some level, thereby also
the aggregator for that group.
P.L.G
L.L.G
I.H.G
B.G.G
Q.G.G
G.G.G
K.G.G
C.G.G
R.G.G
E.G.G
D.D.G
J .D.G
H.H.G
F.H.G
O.H.G
M.H.G
N.H.G
A.L.G
Level-1 group head.
Level-0 group head.
Level-2 group head.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 13
Aggregation
Each node is a head of a group at some level, thereby also
the aggregator for that group.
P.L.G
Level-0 group head.
Aggregator for G
0
P
.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 14
Aggregation
Each node is a head of a group at some level, thereby also
the aggregator for that group.
L.L.G
Level-1 group head.
Aggregator for G
0
L
and G
1
L
.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 15
Aggregation
Each node is a head of a group at some level, thereby also
the aggregator for that group.
G.G.G
Level-2 group head.
Aggregator for G
0
G
,
G
1
G
and G
2
G
.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 16
Aggregation
At level-0, temporal aggregation of local readings.
P.L.G
L.L.G
I.H.G
B.G.G
Q.G.G
G.G.G
K.G.G
C.G.G
R.G.G
E.G.G
D.D.G
J .D.G
H.H.G
F.H.G
O.H.G
M.H.G
N.H.G
A.L.G
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 17
Aggregation
At higher levels, spatial aggregation at parent aggregators.
P.L.G
L.L.G
I.H.G
B.G.G
Q.G.G
G.G.G
K.G.G
C.G.G
R.G.G
E.G.G
D.D.G
J .D.G
H.H.G
F.H.G
O.H.G
M.H.G
N.H.G
A.L.G
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 18
Aggregation
At higher levels, spatial aggregation at parent aggregators.
L.L.G
G.G.G
D.D.G
H.H.G
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 19
Querying
A query is first processed by the top-level aggregator.
G.G.G
N.H.G
Query issuer.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 20
Querying
And then by the aggregators at subsequent hierarchy levels.
L.L.G
G.G.G
D.D.G
H.H.G
N.H.G
Query issuer.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 21
Aggregation
And then by the aggregators at subsequent hierarchy levels.
P.L.G
L.L.G
N.H.G
A.L.G
Query issuer.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 22
Querying
And then by the aggregators at subsequent hierarchy levels.
P.L.G
N.H.G
Query issuer.
The reply is found here.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 23
In the paper,
we discuss the details of:
How does the hierarchical naming work?
How does the routing of aggregates and
queries work?
How are the naming and routing used to
provide the aggregation and querying?
How can one maintain the names and the
routes?
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 24
Evaluation
Simulations (application-blind):
Event driven.
Unit-disk connectivity.
No message loss.
Experiments:
Only the hierarchy maintenance and routing
algorithm.
No full system prototype yet.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 25
Sample results
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
1 4 16 64 256 1024 4096
#

m
e
s
s
a
g
e
s
network size
average over 100 runs
optimal centr. w/ aggr.
optimal centr. w/o aggr.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 4 16 64 256 1024 4096
#

m
e
s
s
a
g
e
s
network size
0% 14% 17.3%
25.8%
29.9%
30.5%
31.3%
hier.-based muti-res. stor.
optimal centr. w/ aggr.
Cost of multi-resolution aggregation.
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 26
Conclusion
Multi-resolution storage based on area hierarchy
is an appealing solution.
Warrants more research.
More real-world experimentation is necessary to
truly evaluate its potential.
More in-depth analysis on potential applications is
necessary.
Open question: Will our idea remain an academic
exercise or will it lead to real world systems?
J une 17, 2009 ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany 27
Thank you
Any questions?