15

Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study
Page 2: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study
Page 3: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study

• OS for mote-class WSN.

• Developed by the Networked and Embedded

Systems Lab (NESL) at UCLA.

• Dynamic reconfigurability- main motivation

behind SOS.

• Completely written in C Programming language.

Page 4: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study

SensorManager

MessagingI/O

SystemTimer

SOSServices

Tree RoutingModule

Data CollectorApplication

Photo-sensorModule

DynamicallyLoaded modules

DynamicMemory

MessageScheduler

DynamicLinker

KernelComponents

Stati

c SO

S k

erne

l

Page 5: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study

• Dynamic operating system.

• Compact kernel interface.

• Safety features through run-time checks

• Performance

Page 6: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study
Page 7: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study

• Fully preemptive reservation-based RTOS.• Developed by Carnegie Mellon University.• Multi-hop networking support.• Supports fixed-priority preemptive

multitasking.• Currently runs on the FireFly and MicaZ

motes.

Page 8: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study
Page 9: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study

MultitaskingTimeliness and SchedulabilityEnforcement of Resource Usage LimitsClassical OS MultitaskingSmall footprint

<18 KB ROM <2 KB RAM

FEATURES OF NANO-RK

Page 10: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study
Page 11: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study
Page 12: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study
Page 13: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study
Page 14: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study

Preemptive schedulingTask synchronization deadlock prevention

Page 15: Sos And Nano Rk A Comparative Study