System Architecture and Application-Specific Verification Method for Fault-Tolerant Automated Driving Systems

Mehmed, Ayhan; Steiner, Wilfried; Antlanger, Moritz; Punnekkat, Sasikumar

doi:10.1109/ivs.2019.8813824

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We claim this setup is significant for our purposes of comparing the two opposite architectural paradigms of AC protocols in the scope of reconfigurable real-time Ethernet, either applied to vehicles [3], [13], [32]- [34], autonomous robots [1], or factory cells [4]. Our setup has a lower number of nodes than typical, but, for our purposes, the number of nodes is not a significant parameter, since it has negligible influence in either of the protocols (see Sections IV and V).…”

Section: A Experimental Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite low, the results achieved with such a number of streams already provide relevant insights on the impact of the AC architecture. Moreover, remember that each of these streams typically carries an aggregation of multiple signals [34]. Nevertheless, we consider streams with a relatively small payload, which is typical for control traffic.…”

Section: A Experimental Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing Admission Control Architectures for Real-Time Ethernet

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industry 4.0 and Autonomous Driving are emerging resource-intensive distributed application domains that deal with open and evolving environments. These systems are subject to stringent resource, timing, and other non-functional constraints, as well as frequent reconfiguration. Thus, real-time behavior must not preclude operational flexibility. This combination is motivating ongoing efforts within the Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) standardization committee to define admission control mechanisms for Ethernet. Existing mechanisms in TSN, like those of AVB, its predecessor, follow a distributed architecture that favors scalability. Conversely, the new mechanisms envisaged for TSN (IEEE 802.1Qcc) follow a (partially) centralized architecture, favoring short reconfiguration latency. This paper shows the first quantitative comparison between distributed and centralized admission control architectures concerning reconfiguration latency. Here, we compare AVB against a dynamic real-time reconfigurable Ethernet technology with centralized management, namely HaRTES. Our experiments show a significantly lower latency using the centralized architecture. We also observe the dependence of the distributed architecture in the end nodes' performance and the benefit of having a protected channel for the admission control transactions. INDEX TERMS Ethernet, TSN, AVB, HaRTES, real-time communication, dynamic reconfiguration, admission control protocol.

show abstract

Section: A Experimental Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Experimental Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%