this paper was submitted on
1 point (100% like it)
1 up vote 0 down votes

papers

subscribe8 readers

Welcome to the public review site of papers appearing in MobiSys 2012. Here you can find the public review written by a PC member for each paper and the authors' rebuttal to it. You can comment on any of them or add your own opinion. Finally you can vote to "like" or "dislike" a paper by clicking the up or down arrows next to its title.

all 3 comments

[–]ConferenceQA 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Q: (Michelle Gong, Intel) Is the energy saving you showed for real time streaming?

A: Yes.

Q: If the rate is 30 frames per second, how can the system goes sleep?

A: We were surprised by this result at first. In the end, we found that video streaming usually holds a buffer and fetch the content aggressively. When the buffer is full, the download stops. Only when the buffered content is lower than a threshold, the client will fetch again. That’s why we have this gain.

[–]ConferenceQA 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Q: You were using 802.11 adhoc mode. How about Wi-Fi direct which implements a Wi-Fi ap sleep mode?

A: We experimented with Wi-Fi direct. But it’s a separate mode by itself. So we cannot use it for tethering and as a normal client. And the energy consumption is slightly higher than tethering.

Q: That’s because vendors didn’t implement the sleep mode correctly.

[–]ConferenceQA 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Q: Is the buffer around 300 ms?

A: Around 10 seconds

Q: So it’s not real-time interacting streaming but more of downloading video streaming. Also the use of request/respond may not be efficient for multiple clients. (yes)