2016 IEEE 2nd International Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry Leveraging a Better Tomorrow (RTSI) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/rtsi.2016.7740559
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing application layer protocols for the Internet of Things via experimentation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is worth noting that higher levels of MQTT quality impose much higher overhead, because with higher MQTT quality there is the need to acknowledge messages published to the broker; moreover, in case a message dispatch to a subscriber fails, it is mandatory to maintain messages and try to deliver them again. In other words, while the adoption of higher quality levels ensures better message delivery at a per-packet point of view, it increases non-negligibly the overall overhead at the same time, by possibly reducing overall scalability, as also identified by [17]. Figure 8 reports receiver throughput in terms of msg/s while increasing sender throughput.…”
Section: Performance Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, it is worth noting that higher levels of MQTT quality impose much higher overhead, because with higher MQTT quality there is the need to acknowledge messages published to the broker; moreover, in case a message dispatch to a subscriber fails, it is mandatory to maintain messages and try to deliver them again. In other words, while the adoption of higher quality levels ensures better message delivery at a per-packet point of view, it increases non-negligibly the overall overhead at the same time, by possibly reducing overall scalability, as also identified by [17]. Figure 8 reports receiver throughput in terms of msg/s while increasing sender throughput.…”
Section: Performance Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…actual information sent over the network) and the total number of bytes exchanged, also called protocol efficiency in [4].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these papers, authors present MQTT, XMPP, CoAP, AMQP, HTTP and WebSockets in the context of IoT. In [4], authors conduct experiments to compare MQTT, WebSocket and CoAP performances on LAN, ISP and cellular network. In a scenario similar to a real network, they compared average RTT and they concluded that changing from LAN to an IoT network does not trigger a fall of a protocol's efficiency.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Specifically, the user cannot modify most of the parts within a Cloud based architecture, which appears as "black box". There are two methods for the estimation of the overall delay and its sub-components: simulations can be done as described in [16,17], or experiments can be setup as in [18,19]. However, it has to be highlighted that simulations offer the possibility to finely control the impact of varying the Electronics 2018, 7, 109 5 of 14 quantity of interest but they can suffer from over simplified models, that do not accurately represent real-world scenarios.…”
Section: The Proposed Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%