Authors Inés Álvarez Vadillo | Luis Moutinho | Paulo Pedreiras | Daniel Bujosa Mateu | Julián Proenza Arenas | Luís Almeida
In IEEEAccess, IEEE, vol. 8, pp. 105521-105534, June, 2020.
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. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2999817
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. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2999817
