Proceedings of the 6th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference 2010
DOI: 10.1145/1815396.1815483
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scheduling alternatives for mobile WiMAX end-to-end simulations and analysis

Abstract: Fourth Generation wireless technologies depend on the performance of their schedulers to deliver high data throughput and meet quality-of-service commitments. We compare four schedulers for mobile WiMAX using five industry-defined key performance indicators: sector and application throughput, completion time, fairness index and delay. The selected scheduling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The PF with a window size, t c = 50K achieves higher goodput than t c = 500 since the high t c results in a greedy like performance. The bigger value of t c serves users with good channel longer and delays the users with poor channel and leaves them underserved [9]. The PF with t c =500 has a lower goodput due to the fact that it considers fairness and behaves similarly as WFQ for this specific scenario.…”
Section: B Multiple Sss and Downlink Scheduling Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The PF with a window size, t c = 50K achieves higher goodput than t c = 500 since the high t c results in a greedy like performance. The bigger value of t c serves users with good channel longer and delays the users with poor channel and leaves them underserved [9]. The PF with t c =500 has a lower goodput due to the fact that it considers fairness and behaves similarly as WFQ for this specific scenario.…”
Section: B Multiple Sss and Downlink Scheduling Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The traffic load is calculated as in (7) We then consider 3, 6, 10 and 50 users in a cell at the range supporting 64QAM ¾ STBC for WFQ and PF as well as Greedy independently. We configure a CBR traffic load with the packet size of 1024 bytes whilst the PF has two different t c parameters equals to 500 [13] and 50K [9]. Our aim is to compare the maximum achievable UGS goodput as well as average delay for channel-aware and queue-aware schedulers for a group of users.…”
Section: Scenariosmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A comparison of WFQ, PFS, and MLWDF under several WiMAX application scenarios is provided in [36]. The outcome is that no scheduler is superior to the others in all situations, but the authors suggest that the ideal scheduler could be a hybrid algorithm that incorporates MLWDF and WFQ.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The multiple-carrier PHY spectrum works under the 2-11 GHz range for the fixed and mobile stations and has the Line of Sight (LOS) and Non LOS features [4,5]. The WiMAX MAC layer is designed and implemented with some advanced features to provide efficiency, flexibility, encryption, error correction, link adaptation, power control, security, Automatic Retransmission Request (ARQ) and QoS for Uplink (UL) and Downlink (DL) traffic [6,7]. The MAC layer comprises of three sub-layers which are the service specific Convergence Sub-layer (CS), the Common Part Sub-layer (CPS) and the Security Sub-layer [8,9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%