Properties of BuST and timed-token protocols in managing hard real-time traffic

Abstract

This paper analyzes the ability of BuST to manage realtime and non real-time traffic under three different budget allocation schemes, and compares the performance of BuST with the original timed-token protocol (FDDI) and its modified version (FDDI-M). It is shown that BuST provides an higher guaranteed bandwidth for real-time traffic than FDDI, and improves the service for non real-time traffic with respect to FDDI-M. Moreover, new properties of the analyzed budget allocation schemes are provided for BuST, FDDI and FDDI-M. Finally, a set of simulation results are carried out to assess the performance of the three considered protocols.

Token Passing Techniques for Hard Real-Time Communication

“…Instead, both BuST and MTTP present a WCAU which depends on min and equivalent to that presented with the NPA scheme. As shown in (Franchino et al, 2008a) , with the MLA scheme MTTP can not serve best-effort Table 3. WCAU of the considered schemes.…”

“…For a complete survey, an interested reader can see (Zhang et al, 2004) for TTP; (Chan et al, 1997) and (Daoxu et al, 1998) for MTTP; (Franchino et al, 2007), and (Franchino et al, 2008a) for BuST. In the following, we compare the schemes performance under the token passing protocols considered in this chapter.…”