There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.

Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

I and i

This survey covers rollback-recovery techniques that do not require special language constructs. In the first part of the survey we classify rollback-recovery protocols into checkpoint-based and log-based.Checkpoint-based protocols rely solely on checkpointing for system state restoration. Checkpointing can be coordinated, uncoordinated, or communication-induced. Log-based protocols combine checkpointing with logging of nondeterministic events, encoded in tuples called determinants. Depending on how determinants are logged, log-based protocols can be pessimistic, optimistic, or causal. Throughout the survey, we highlight the research issues that are at the core of rollback-recovery and present the solutions that currently address them. We also compare the performance of different rollback-recovery protocols with respect to a series of desirable properties and discuss the issues that arise in the practical implementations of these protocols.

/pdf/a-survey-of-rollback-recovery-protocols-in-message-passing-bnrpate93a.pdf

A survey of rollback-recovery protocols in message-passing systems

Network lifetime has become the key characteristic for evaluating sensor networks in an application-specific way. Especially the availability of nodes, the sensor coverage, and the connectivity have been included in discussions on network lifetime. Even quality of service measures can be reduced to lifetime considerations. A great number of algorithms and methods were proposed to increase the lifetime of a sensor network—while their evaluations were always based on a particular definition of network lifetime. Motivated by the great differences in existing definitions of sensor network lifetime that are used in relevant publications, we reviewed the state of the art in lifetime definitions, their differences, advantages, and limitations. This survey was the starting point for our work towards a generic definition of sensor network lifetime for use in analytic evaluations as well as in simulation models—focusing on a formal and concise definition of accumulated network lifetime and total network lifetime. Our definition incorporates the components of existing lifetime definitions, and introduces some additional measures. One new concept is the ability to express the service disruption tolerance of a network. Another new concept is the notion of time-integration: in many cases, it is sufficient if a requirement is fulfilled over a certain period of time, instead of at every point in time. In addition, we combine coverage and connectivity to form a single requirement called connected coverage. We show that connected coverage is different from requiring noncombined coverage and connectivity. Finally, our definition also supports the concept of graceful degradation by providing means of estimating the degree of compliance with the application requirements. We demonstrate the applicability of our definition based on the surveyed lifetime definitions as well as using some example scenarios to explain the various aspects influencing sensor network lifetime.

/pdf/on-the-lifetime-of-wireless-sensor-networks-59hdyqoqi3.pdf

On the lifetime of wireless sensor networks

Using middleware to bridge the gap between applications and low-level constructs is a novel approach to resolving many wireless sensor network issues and enhancing application development. This survey discusses representative WSN middleware, presenting the state of the research

http://www.informatik.hs-furtwangen.de/~hanne/Pervasive/MiddelwareAndWirelessSensorNetworks.pdf

Middleware: middleware challenges and approaches for wireless sensor networks

VANet security challenges and solutions: A survey

Sensor networks are emerging as a new tool for habitat monitoring in nature reserves, monitoring and gathering events in hazardous environments, surveillance of buildings, and surveillance of enemy activities in a battlefield environment. Nodes in a sensor network are severely constrained by energy, storage capacity and computing power. To prolong the lifetime of the sensor nodes, designing efficient routing protocols is critical. Even though sensor networks are primarily designed for monitoring and reporting events, since they are application dependent, a single routing protocol cannot be efficient for sensor networks across all applications. We first analyze the requirements and similarities of MANETs (mobile ad hoc networks) and sensor networks. Then, we describe the existing routing protocols for sensor networks and present a critical analysis of these protocols. Finally, we compare and contrast these protocols. This comparison reveals the important features that need to be taken into consideration while designing and evaluating new routing protocols for sensor networks.

Routing protocols for sensor networks

Review: Unicast routing protocols for vehicular ad hoc networks: A critical comparison and classification

Checkpointing algorithms are classified as synchronous and asynchronous in the literature. In synchronous checkpointing, processes synchronize their checkpointing activities so that a globally consistent set of checkpoints is always maintained in the system. Synchronizing checkpointing activity involves message overhead and process execution may have to be suspended during the checkpointing coordination, resulting in performance degradation. In asynchronous checkpointing, processes take checkpoints without any coordination with others. Asynchronous checkpointing provides maximum autonomy for processes to take checkpoints; however, some of the checkpoints taken may not lie on any consistent global checkpoint, thus making the checkpointing efforts useless. Asynchronous checkpointing algorithms in the literature can reduce the number of useless checkpoints by making processes take communication induced checkpoints besides asynchronous checkpoints. We call such algorithms quasi-synchronous. In this paper, we present a theoretical framework for characterizing and classifying such algorithms. The theory not only helps to classify and characterize the quasi-synchronous checkpointing algorithms, but also helps to analyze the properties and limitations of the algorithms belonging to each class. It also provides guidelines for designing and evaluating such algorithms.

Quasi-synchronous checkpointing: Models, characterization, and classification

In this paper, we propose a quasi-synchronous checkpointing algorithm and a low-overhead recovery algorithm based on it. The checkpointing algorithm preserves process autonomy by allowing them to take checkpoints asynchronously and uses communication-induced checkpoint coordination for the progression of the recovery line which helps bound rollback propagation during a recovery. Thus, it has the easiness and low overhead of asynchronous checkpointing and the recovery time advantages of synchronous checkpointing. There is no extra message overhead involved during checkpointing and the additional checkpointing overhead is nominal. The algorithm ensures the existence of a recovery line consistent with the latest checkpoint of any process all the time. The recovery algorithm exploits this feature to restore the system to a state consistent with the latest checkpoint of a failed process. The recovery algorithm has no domino effect and a failed process needs only to rollback to its latest checkpoint and request the other processes to roll back to a consistent checkpoint. To avoid domino effect, it uses selective pessimistic message logging at the receiver end. The recovery is asynchronous for single process failure. Neither the recovery algorithm nor the checkpointing algorithm requires the channels to be FIFO. We do not use vector timestamps for determining dependency between checkpoints since vector timestamps generally result in high message overhead during failure-free operation.

https://cs.uky.edu/~manivann/cs570/96_IEEE_ICDCS_73980100.pdf

A low-overhead recovery technique using quasi-synchronous checkpointing

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=cs_facpub

Dakshnamoorthy Manivannan

Papers

Routing protocols for sensor networks

Review: Unicast routing protocols for vehicular ad hoc networks: A critical comparison and classification

Quasi-synchronous checkpointing: Models, characterization, and classification

A low-overhead recovery technique using quasi-synchronous checkpointing

Secure Authentication and Privacy-Preserving Techniques in Vehicular Ad-hoc NETworks (VANETs)