A Constraint-Driven Assessment of Operating Systems for Wearable Devices

Amorim, Vicente J. P.; Delabrida, Saul; Oliveira, Ricardo Augusto Rabelo

doi:10.1109/sbesc.2016.030

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As stated by authors in previous research [31,32], wearables currently vary from simple to sophisticated solutions, that may embed or not, a significant number of internal hardware components. Despite the already existent wearables classification for different contexts [23,38,97], software impact on these devices should be examined taking into account their requirements.…”

Section: Wearable Appliancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors already investigated OSs performance impacts on wearable devices. Previous work [31,32,33] measure and compare different variables as a means to figure out the relevance of a well-tuned OS. Results pointed out the need to provide more focus on the wearables software part.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to map the improvement points and their values, the end-user must inform the tool about the system behavioral characteristics. Based on previous research [31], wearable devices separate into three different categories according to their complexity: Simple, intermediate and complex (Figure 4b,c). By answering questions about device-specific functionalities (Figure 4d), the end-user intrinsically provides input information that supports WeCOST while adjusting and improving the wearable OS performance.…”

Section: Wecost—wearable Create Os Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In previous research [31,32,33], authors conducted an effort to evaluate the performance of common OSs used in wearables. A proper categorization was used as a means to segment and evaluate interesting and relevant features.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Software and Hardware Requirements and Trade-Offs in Operating Systems for Wearables: A Tool to Improve Devices’ Performance

Amorim

Silva

Oliveira

2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wearable device requirements currently vary from soft to hard real-time constraints. Frequently, hardware improvements are a way to speed-up the global performance of a solution. However, changing some parts or the whole hardware may increase device complexity, raising the costs and leading to development delays of products or research prototypes. This paper focuses on software improvements, presenting a tool designed to create different versions of operating systems (OSs) fitting the specifications of wearable devices projects. Authors have developed a software tool allowing the end-user to craft a new OS in just a few steps. In order to validate the generated OS, an original wearable prototype for mining environments is outlined. Resulting data presented here allows for measuring the actual impact an OS has in different variables of a solution. Finally, the analysis also allows for evaluating the performance impact associated with each hardware part. Results suggest the viability of using the proposed solution when searching for performance improvements on wearables.

show abstract

Section: Wearable Appliancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Wecost—wearable Create Os Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Software and Hardware Requirements and Trade-Offs in Operating Systems for Wearables: A Tool to Improve Devices’ Performance

Amorim

Silva

Oliveira

2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has a user‐friendly interface which makes it easier to set up hardware. Also, Android Things may run wearable devices due to both environment common characteristics, and the energy‐consumption restriction [33, 90, 109, 110]. Android Things supports many hardware platforms such as Intel (X86), Edison (Dual‐core Atom 500M), minnowboard, Qualcomm (Arm), dragonboard (MSM8916, QCore A53), Marvell (Arm), ABox Edge (IAP140, QCore A53), Freescale (Arm), and Rockchip (Arm) [111].…”

Section: Oss For High‐end Iot Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive survey of the IoT open‐source OSs

Qutqut

Al-Sakran

Almasalha

et al. 2018

IET wirel. sens. syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Internet of things (IoT) has attracted a great deal of research and industry attention recently and is envisaged to support diverse emerging domains including smart cities, health informatics, and smart sensory platforms. Operating system (OS) support for IoT plays a pivotal role in developing scalable and interoperable applications that are reliable and efficient. IoT is implemented by both high-end and low-end devices that require OSs. Recently, the authors have witnessed a diversity of OSs emerging into the IoT environment to facilitate IoT deployments and developments. In this study, they present a comprehensive overview of the common and existing open-source OSs for IoT. Each OS is described in detail based on a set of designing and developmental aspects that they established. These aspects include architecture and kernel, programming model, scheduling, memory management, networking protocols support, simulator support, security, power consumption, and support for multimedia. They present a taxonomy of the current IoT open-source OSs. The objective of this survey is to provide a wellstructured guide to developers and researchers to determine the most appropriate OS for each specific IoT devices/applications based on their functional and non-functional requirements. They remark that this is the first such tutorial style paper on IoT OSs.

show abstract