Content deleted Content added
HeyElliott (talk | contribs) MOS:CQ, added info to refs, ce |
HeyElliott (talk | contribs) Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title, added info to refs, MOS:T, ce |
||
Line 57:
ATM uses connection-oriented [[virtual channel]]s (VCs) which have fully deterministic paths through the network, and [[UPC and NPC|usage and network parameter control]] (UPC/NPC), which are implemented within the network, to limit the traffic on each VC separately. This allows the usage of the shared resources (switch buffers) in the network to be calculated from the parameters of the traffic to be carried in advance, i.e. at system design time. That they are implemented by the network means that these calculations remain valid even when other users of the network behave in unexpected ways, i.e. transmit more data than they are expected to. The calculated usages can then be compared with the capacities of these resources to show that, given the constraints on the routes and the bandwidths of these connections, the resource used for these transfers will never be over-subscribed. These transfers will therefore never be affected by congestion and there will be no losses due to this effect. Then, from the predicted maximum usages of the switch buffers, the maximum delay through the network can also be predicted. However, for the reliability and timeliness to be proved, and for the proofs to be tolerant of faults in and malicious actions by the equipment connected to the network, the calculations of these resource usages cannot be based on any parameters that are not actively enforced by the network, i.e. they cannot be based on what the sources of the traffic are expected to do or on statistical analyses of the traffic characteristics (see [[network calculus]]).<ref>{{cite journal| first1=Y. J. | last1=Kim | first2=S. C. | last2=Chang | first3=C. K. | last3=Un | first4=B. C. | last4=Shin | title=UPC/NPC algorithm for guaranteed QoS in ATM networks | journal=Computer Communications | volume=19 | number=3 | date=March 1996 | pages=216–225 | publisher=[[Elsevier Science Publishers]] | ___location=Amsterdam, the Netherlands | doi=10.1016/0140-3664(96)01063-8 }}</ref>
AFDX uses frequency ___domain bandwidth allocation and [[Traffic policing (communications)|traffic policing]], that allows the traffic on each virtual link to be limited so that the requirements for shared resources can be predicted and [[congestion avoidance|congestion prevented]] so it can be proved not to affect the critical data.<ref>
TTEthernet provides the lowest possible latency in transferring data across the network by using time-___domain control methods – each time triggered transfer is scheduled at a specific time so that contention for shared resources is controlled and thus the possibility of congestion is eliminated. The switches in the network enforce this timing to provide tolerance of faults in, and malicious actions on the part of, the other connected equipment. However, "synchronized local clocks are the fundamental prerequisite for time-triggered communication".<ref>Wilfried Steiner and Bruno Dutertre, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20230125090223/http://www.csl.sri.com/users/bruno/publis/fmics2010.pdf
However, low latency in transferring data over the bus or network does not necessarily translate into low transport delays between the application processes that source and sink this data. This is especially true where the transfers over the bus or network are cyclically scheduled (as is commonly the case with MIL-STD-1553B and STANAG 3910, and necessarily so with AFDX and TTEthernet) but the application processes are not synchronized with this schedule.
| |||