"The purpose of each layer is to offer certain services to the
higher layers, shielding those layers from the details of how the offered services are actually implemented."
Now the purpose of each layer is to offer services to the higher layers. How about the highest layer, there is no more layers to offer services to, so either is sentence isn't correct, or it's missing.
Well, usually the service above that is human readable data. Whether it be a webpage or an email, so you could say the layer above is the human or at least the parser in the browser. However one can layer another layer on top anyway, as is done in say the twitter API, it's messages being sent back and forth across HTTP for example. So how 7 osi layers is not as clear cut as it used to be.
The application layer is the layer where everything starts and ends. Therefore, there is no requirement of passing data to a higher level. It's an Exception of the statement
Related
We're trying to determine whether to use separate GATT characteristics or combine multiple properties into one custom characteristic.
The benefits of combining is fairly clear: one transaction, many properties.
But even with multiple characteristics (one property per), the transaction seems quick enough.
Is this entirely an arbitrary decision? Or are there best practices?
This is highly relevant and depends on the system you're trying to implement. My recommendation is to go for many separate characteristics. The reason is that you will be simplifying the application both on the GATT server side (where all the characteristics are stored) and the GATT client side. For example, if you use multiple characteristics, this means that you have to add extra intelligence to your GATT client side to separate the data in those characteristics. If the data side is variable, then this will be even more complicated. If in the future you have to update this combined characteristic with new features, the task will probably be relatively more complex for both the client and the server side compared to having many characteristics as things will be more categorised and compartmentalised.
Another thing to consider is testing. When you create your GATT server application, you'd want to test it with one or many different GATT client implementations (e.g. iOS device, Linux machine, etc). For that, it will be a lot easier if the remote device is not getting a combined characteristic and trying to make sense of the data.
Finally, please note that as you said, the transaction in Bluetooth is relatively quick and you will not be getting a huge difference when using multiple characteristics vs one. The reason is that by default the characteristic length is 20 and the Bluetooth packet length is 27 (unless you're using a Bluetooth 4.2 feature known as Data Length Extension, which not all phones support). Therefore, even if you use characteristic lengths greater than 20, the Bluetooth stack/baseband will divide the characteristic into chunks and send them over air, therefore not achieving the improved throughput that you aimed for.
I hope this helps.
How can defined topology in Castalia-3.2 for WBAN ?
How can import topology in omnet++ to casalia ?
where the topology defined in default WBAN scenario in Castalia?
with regard
thanks
Topology of a network is an abstraction that shows the structure of the communication links in the network. It's an abstraction because the notion of a link is an abstraction itself. There are no "real" links in a wireless network. The communication is happening in a broadcast medium and there are many parameters that dictate if a packet is received or not, such as the power of transmission, the path loss between transmitter and receiver, noise and interference, and also just luck. Still, the notion of a link could be useful in some circumstances, and some simulators are using it to define simulation scenarios. You might be used to simulators that you can draw nodes and then simply draw lines between them to define their links. This is not how Castalia models a network.
Castalia does not model links between the nodes, it models the channel and radios to get a more realistic communication behaviour.
Topology is often confused with deployment (I confuse them myself sometimes). Deployment is just the placement of nodes on the field. There are multiple ways to define deployment in Castalia, if you wish, but it is not needed in all scenarios (more on this later). People can confuse deployment with topology, because under very simplistic assumptions certain deployments lead to certain topologies. Castalia does not make these assumptions. Study the manual (especially chapter 4) to get a better understanding of Castalia's modeling.
After you have understood the modeling in Castalia, and you still want a specific/custom topology for some reason then you could play with some parameters to achieve your topology at least in a statistical sense. Assuming all nodes use the same radios and the same transmission power, then the path loss between nodes becomes a defining factor of the "quality" of the link between the nodes. In Castalia, you can define the path losses for each and every pair of nodes, using a pathloss map file.
SN.wirelessChannel.pathLossMapFile = "../Parameters/WirelessChannel/BANmodels/pathLossMap.txt"
This tells Castalia to use the specific path losses found in the file instead of computing path losses based on a wireless channel model. The deployment does not matter in this case. At least it does not matter for communication purposes (it might matter for other aspects of the simulation, for example if we are sampling a physical process that depends on location).
In our own simulations with BAN, we have defined a pathloss map based on experimental data, because other available models are not very accurate for BAN. For example the, lognormal shadowing model, which is Castalia's default, is not a good fit for BAN simulations. We did not want to enforce a specific topology, we just wanted a realistic channel model, and defining a pathloss map based on experimental data was the best way.
I have the impression though that when you say topology, you are not only referring to which nodes could communicate with which nodes, but which nodes do communicate with which nodes. This is also a matter of the layers above the radio (MAC and routing). For example it's the MAC and Routing that allow for relay nodes or not.
Note that in Castalia's current implementations of 802.15.6MAC and 802.15.4MAC, relay nodes are not allowed. So you can not create a mesh topology with these default implementations. Only a star topology is supported. If you want something more you'll have to implemented yourself.
I have DICOM C-StoreSCP application which receives DICOM images from my other C-StoreSCU application. My SCU always send one (and only one) and complete (all images from given study) study on one association. So SCP always know that all images received from SCU belong to single study. I know I can also check StudyIUID; but that is not my point of interest here.
I want to know total number of images in study that is being transferred. Using this data, I want to display status like "Received 3 of 10 images..." on screen. I can count images received (3 in this case) but how can I know total number of images in given study (10 in this case) that is being transferred?
Workaround:
On receiving first C-Store request on SCP, I should read the StudyIUID and establish new association with SCU (SCU should also support Q\R SCP capabilities in this case) for Q\R and get total count of images in study using C-Find.
Limitations: -
SCU should also support Q\R SCP features.
SCU should compulsorily send image count in C-Find response.
SCU should always send all images from only one study on one asociation.
I can easily overcome the limitations if I write SCU (with Q\R SCP capabilities) myself. But my SCP also receive images from third party SCUs those may not implement features necessary.
Please suggest if there is any DICOM compatible solution?
Is this possible using MPPS? I have not worked on MPPS part of DICOM yet.
Conclusion: -
Accepted answer (kritzel_sw) suggests very good solution (using MPPS) with only one drawback. MPPS is not mandatory service for each SCU. MPPS is applicable to only SCUs those actually acquire the image i.e. modalities. Even not all modalities support MPPS out of the box; they need unlock of feature with additional license cost and configurations. Also, there are lot of scenarios where modalities push instances to some intermediate workstation and the workstation further push it to SCP.
May be, I need to look into combination of DICOM + NON_DICOM wayout.
Good question, but no simple answer.
Expecting a Storage SCU to support the C-FIND-SCP as well is not going to work well in practice unless you are referring to archive servers / VNAs.
MPPS is not a bad idea. All attributes (Study, Series, SOP Instance UID) you need are mandatory, so it should be valid to rely on them. "Should" because I have seen vendors violating these constraints.
However, how can you be sure that the SCU has received the complete study? Maybe the study consists of CT and MR series, but the SCU sending the images to you only conforms to CT and rejects to receive MRs.
You might want to consider the Instance Availability Notification service which is another service class with which information about "who has got which image" can be made available to other systems. Actually this would exactly do what you need, because you know in advance for each AET ("device") which images are available there. But this service is not widely supported in practice.
Even if you really know which images are available on the system that is sending the study to you - how can you be sure that there is no user sitting in front of it who has just selected a sub-set of the study for sending.
Sorry, that I cannot provide a "real solution" to you but for the reasons I have mentioned above, I am not aware of any real-world system which supports the functionality (progress bar) you are describing.
I try to found the best method to do this, considering a turn by turn cross-plateform game on mobile (3G bandwidth) with projectile and falling blocks.
I wonder if one device (the current player turn = server role) can run the physics and send some "key frames" data (position, orientation of blocks) to the other device, which just interpolate from the current state to the "keyframes" received.
With this method I'm quite afraid about the huge amount of data to guarantee the same visual on the other player's device.
Another method should be to send the physics data (force, acceleration ...) and run physics on the other device too, but I'm afraid to never have the same result at all.
My current implementation works like this:
Server manages physics simulation
On any major collision of any object, the object's absolute position, rotation, AND velocity/acceleration/forces are sent to each client.
Client sets each object at the position along with their velocity and applies the necessary forces.
Client calculates latency and advances the physics system to accommodate for the lag time by that amount.
This, for me, works quite well. I have the physics system running over dozens of sub-systems (maps).
Some key things about my implementation:
Completely ignore any object that isn't flagged as "necessary". For instance, dirt and dust particles that respond to player movement or grass and water as it responds to player movement. Basically non-essential stuff.
All of this is sent through UDP by the way. This would be horrendous on TCP.
You will want to send absolute positions and rotations.
You're right, that if you send just forces, it won't work. It's possible to make this work, but it's much harder than just sending positions. You need both devices to do their calculations the same way, so before each frame, you need to wait for the input from the other device, you need to use the same time step, scripts need to either run in the same order or be commutative, and you can only use CPU instructions guaranteed to give the same result on both machines.
that last one is one that makes it particularly problematic, because it means you can't use floating-point numbers (floats/singles, or doubles). you have to use integers, or roll your own number format, so you can't take advantage of many existing tools.
Many games use a client-server model with client-side prediction. if your game is turn based, you might be able to get away with not using client-side prediction. instead, you could have the client lag behind by some amount of time, so that you can be fairly sure that the server's input will already be there when you go to render. client-side prediction is only important if the client can make changes that the server cares about (such as moving).
I'm thinking about making a networked game. I'm a little new to this, and have already run into a lot of issues trying to put together a good plan for dead reckoning and network latency, so I'd love to see some good literature on the topic. I'll describe the methods I've considered.
Originally, I just sent the player's input to the server, simulated there, and broadcast changes in the game state to all players. This made cheating difficult, but under high latency things were a little difficult to control, since you dont see the results of your own actions immediately.
This GamaSutra article has a solution that saves bandwidth and makes local input appear smooth by simulating on the client as well, but it seems to throw cheat-proofing out the window. Also, I'm not sure what to do when players start manipulating the environment, pushing rocks and the like. These previously neutral objects would temporarily become objects the client needs to send PDUs about, or perhaps multiple players do at once. Whose PDUs would win? When would the objects stop being doubly tracked by each player (to compare with the dead reckoned version)? Heaven forbid two players engage in a sumo match (e.g. start pushing each other).
This gamedev.net bit shows the gamasutra solution as inadequate, but describes a different method that doesn't really fix my collaborative boulder-pushing example. Most other things I've found are specific to shooters. I'd love to see something more geared toward games that play like SNES Zelda, but with a little more physics / momentum involved.
Note: I'm not asking about physics simulation here -- other libraries have that covered. Just strategies for making games smooth and reactive despite network latency.
Check out how Valve does it in the Source Engine: http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_Networking
If it's for a first person shooter you'll probably have to delve into some of the topics they mention such as: prediction, compensation, and interpolation.
I find this network physics blog post by Glenn Fiedler, and even more so the response/discussion below it, awesome. It is quite lengthy, but worth-while.
In summary
Server cannot keep up with reiterating simulation whenever client input is received in a modern game physics simulation (i.e. vehicles or rigid body dynamics). Therefore the server orders all clients latency+jitter (time) ahead of server so that all incomming packets come in JIT before the server needs 'em.
He also gives an outline of how to handle the type of ownership you are asking for. The slides he showed on GDC are awesome!
On cheating
Mr Fiedler himself (and others) state that this algorithm suffers from not being very cheat-proof. This is not true. This algorithm is no less easy or hard to exploit than traditional client/server prediction (see article regarding traditional client/server prediction in #CD Sanchez' answer).
To be absolutely clear: the server is not easier to cheat simply because it receives network physical positioning just in time (rather than x milliseconds late as in traditional prediction). The clients are not affected at all, since they all receive the positional information of their opponents with the exact same latency as in traditional prediction.
No matter which algorithm you pick, you may want to add cheat-protection if you're releasing a major title. If you are, I suggest adding encryption against stooge bots (for instance an XOR stream cipher where the "keystream is generated by a pseudo-random number generator") and simple sanity checks against cracks. Some developers also implement algorithms to check that the binaries are intact (to reduce risk of cracking) or to ensure that the user isn't running a debugger (to reduce risk of a crack being developed), but those are more debatable.
If you're just making a smaller indie game, that may only be played by some few thousand players, don't bother implementing any anti-cheat algorithms until 1) you need them; or 2) the user base grows.
we have implemented a multiplayer snake game based on a mandatory server and remote players that make predictions. Every 150ms (in most cases) the server sends back a message containing all the consolidated movements sent by each remote player. If remote client movements arrive late to the server, he discards them. The client the will replay last movement.
Check out Networking education topics at the XNA Creator's Club website. It delves into topics such as network architecture (peer to peer or client/server), Network Prediction, and a few other things (in the context of XNA of course). This may help you find the answers you're looking for.
http://creators.xna.com/education/catalog/?contenttype=0&devarea=19&sort=1
You could try imposing latency to all your clients, depending on the average latency in the area. That way the client can try to work around the latency issues and it will feel similar for most players.
I'm of course not suggesting that you force a 500ms delay on everyone, but people with 50ms can be fine with 150 (extra 100ms added) in order for the gameplay to appear smoother.
In a nutshell; if you have 3 players:
John: 30ms
Paul: 150ms
Amy: 80ms
After calculations, instead of sending the data back to the clients all at the same time, you account for their latency and start sending to Paul and Amy before John, for example.
But this approach is not viable in extreme latency situations where dialup connections or wireless users could really mess it up for everybody. But it's an idea.