A comparative evaluation of AMQP and MQTT protocols over unstable and mobile networks

Luzuriaga, Jorge E.; Pérez, Miguel; Boronat, Pablo; Cano, Juan-Carlos; Calafate, Carlos T.; Manzoni, Pietro

doi:10.1109/ccnc.2015.7158101

Cited by 122 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In [110] authors provides an evaluation of CoAP compared to HTTP which demonstrated that thanks to the smaller headed and packet size in CoAP results in it having a lower energy consumption. In [111] authors compared the capabilities of AMQP and MQTT under a mobile or unstable wireless network testbed with the conclusion that AMQP offered more aspects related to security and MQTT was more energy efficient. Similar to other performance measures presented in this survey, most of the papers compare a pair of protocols in one study, and no study has evaluated and compared the energy consumption of all candidate communication protocols.…”

Section: Energy Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Communication Protocols for Internet of Things and Related Challenges of Fog and Cloud Computing Integration

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fast increment in the number of IoT (Internet of Things) devices is accelerating the research on new solutions to make cloud services scalable. In this context, the novel concept of fog computing as well as the combined fog-to-cloud computing paradigm is becoming essential to decentralize the cloud, while bringing the services closer to the end-system. This paper surveys on the application layer communication protocols to fulfill the IoT communication requirements, and their potential for implementation in fog-and cloud-based IoT systems. To this end, the paper first briefly presents potential protocol candidates, including request-reply and publish-subscribe protocols. After that, the paper surveys these protocols based on their main characteristics, as well as the main performance issues, including latency, energy consumption and network throughput. These findings are thereafter used to place the protocols in each segment of the system (IoT, fog, cloud), and thus opens up the discussion on their choice, interoperability and wider system integration. The survey is expected to be useful to system architects and protocol designers when choosing the communication protocols in an integrated IoT-to-fog-to-cloud system architecture. Continuous innovations in hardware, software and connection solutions in the last decade have lead to the expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT) with the number of connected devices growing by the day [1] [2]. The huge amount of data generated by these devices require to find a proper system architecture able to both process and store all the data. While cloud-based architectures are being currently used for that purpose, the new fog computing paradigm is envisioned to scale and optimize the IoT infrastructures [3]. Examples of the cloud-based IoT solutions have been proposed in [4], [5], [6] and a detailed analysis of properties for IoT cloud providers has been conducted in [7]. These studies have shown that cloud computing has the potential to satisfy many IoT requirements, such as monitoring of services, powerful processing of sensor data streams and visualization tasks. On the other hand, fog-based solutions are suited to address real-time processing, fast data response, and latency issues, thus extending the cloud capabilities closer to the edge of the network [8]. Among many factors that will determine the performance in a combined IoT, fog and cloud computing paradigm, the application layer communication, which in turn depends on the selected communication protocols, is one of the main ones.Despite the popularity and wide spread usage of HTTP, the currently used protocols in various domains of IoT, fog and cloud domains are de-facto fragmented with many different solutions. This is due to the different requirements and areas that IoT needs to cover, combining the functionalities of sensors, actuators and computing power with security, connectivity and a myriad of other features. As a result, there is no common agreement on the reference architecture or adopted standards of co...

show abstract

Section: Energy Consumptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Communication Protocols for Internet of Things and Related Challenges of Fog and Cloud Computing Integration

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors in [73] show that AMQP can send a larger amount of messages per second, compared to REST. Studies show that AMQP has a low success rate in low bandwidth, but the success rate increases as bandwidth increases [72], [74]. 5) MQTT-SN (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport -Sensor Networks): MQTT-SN is a variant of MQTT, which is mainly designed for very resource-constrained devices.…”

Section: A Iot Application Layer Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation and analysis of QUIC for MQTT

Kumar

Dezfouli

2019

Computer Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transport and security protocols are essential to ensure reliable and secure communication between two parties. For IoT applications, these protocols must be lightweight, since IoT devices are usually resource constrained. Unfortunately, the existing transport and security protocols -namely TCP/TLS and UDP/DTLS -fall short in terms of connection overhead, latency, and connection migration when used in IoT applications. In this paper, after studying the root causes of these shortcomings, we show how utilizing QUIC in IoT scenarios results in a higher performance. Based on these observations, and given the popularity of MQTT as an IoT application layer protocol, we integrate MQTT with QUIC. By presenting the main APIs and functions developed, we explain how connection establishment and message exchange functionalities work. We evaluate the performance of MQTTw/QUIC versus MQTTw/TCP using wired, wireless, and long-distance testbeds. Our results show that MQTTw/QUIC reduces connection overhead in terms of the number of packets exchanged with the broker by up to 56%. In addition, by eliminating half-open connections, MQTTw/QUIC reduces processor and memory usage by up to 83% and 50%, respectively. Furthermore, by removing the head-of-line blocking problem, delivery latency is reduced by up to 55%. We also show that the throughput drops experienced by MQTTw/QUIC when a connection migration happens is considerably lower than that of MQTTw/TCP.

show abstract

“…To this end, a suitable communication protocol taking into consideration these constraints should be used. MQTT a lightweight messaging protocol with mobile sector focus seems to be a reasonable choice due to its advantages [15]. In fact, it is reported that MQTT, with its characteristics, is ideal in case of constrained environments limitations such as network expensiveness, low bandwidth or unreliability [16]; moreover, MQTT implements a security mechanism ensuring that all messages are transmitted even in the presence of brief disconnections [15].…”

Section: Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Community-Based Mobile Nearby Assistance Solution : Framework and First Prototype

Boulemtafes

Hamidouche²,

Zatout³

et al. 2017

Computer Science &Amp; Information Technology (CS &Amp; IT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A comparative evaluation of AMQP and MQTT protocols over unstable and mobile networks

Cited by 122 publications

References 8 publications

A Survey of Communication Protocols for Internet of Things and Related Challenges of Fog and Cloud Computing Integration

A Survey of Communication Protocols for Internet of Things and Related Challenges of Fog and Cloud Computing Integration

Implementation and analysis of QUIC for MQTT

Towards a Community-Based Mobile Nearby Assistance Solution : Framework and First Prototype

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About