| Literature DB >> 31561426 |
Chao Guo1, Cheng Gong2, Juan Guo3, Haitao Xu4, Long Zhang5.
Abstract
The efficient processing and forwarding of big data is one of the key problems and challenges facing the next generation wireless communication network. Using a software definition method to virtualize the network can improve the efficiency of network operation and reduce the cost of network operation and maintenance. A software-defined transmission control scheme was presented to solve the excessive controller flow problem for 5G networks. Based on the queuing game theory, a system model was built due to the competition among the requests of the switch. The transmission control platform was in charge of resource allocation. It got maximum social welfare under a profit-maximizing fee. In this model, the optimal queue length was calculated and discussed in a first-come-first-served and last-come-first-served with preemption discipline. The optimal queue length was obtained and the optimal admission fee was calculated. Then, the single switch single controller transmission control model was extended to the multi-switches single controller model. As a result, the social welfare of the system containing the controller's profit and switch surplus reaches the maximum.Entities:
Keywords: 5G; queuing game theory; software-defined; transmission control
Year: 2019 PMID: 31561426 PMCID: PMC6806150 DOI: 10.3390/s19194170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The transmission control system model using TCQG algorithm.
Specifications of the parameters of TCQG scheme.
| Parameter Name | Meaning |
|---|---|
|
| The arrival rate of request in TCPL |
|
| Service rate of the controller in TCPL |
|
| Utilization factor |
|
| Queue lengths of the controller, |
|
| An admission fee |
|
| A switch’s benefit from completing service |
|
| The cost of a switch to stay in the system per unit of time |
Figure 2The flow chart of the TCQG algorithm.
The value of the common simulation parameters.
| Parameter Name |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| (0,60) | 60 | 10 | 100 |
Figure 3The optimal queue length of the controller for the different arrival rate.
Figure 4The optimal admission fee with the growing .
Figure 5The controller’s profit and the system welfare with different queue length.
Figure 6The comparison of average End-to-End Delay between two algorithms.
Figure 7The comparison of throughput of the system between two algorithms.