Figure 2 - uploaded by Rute C. Sofia
Content may be subject to copyright.
2: Components of a ThingsBoard Rule Engine Module. [2]

2: Components of a ThingsBoard Rule Engine Module. [2]

Source publication
Technical Report
Full-text available
IoT communication architectures and protocols have been evolving in order to cope with new challenges derived from environments involving a large number of heterogeneous, resource-constrained devices. Examples of such challenges are the support for intensive processing of large amounts of data; filtering; data mining and classification; high hetero...

Similar publications

Article
Full-text available
The revolution of the Internet of Things (IoT) is transforming many concepts, making them “Smart”. It has revolutionized many areas of real life. Smart City is one of the key concepts of this revolution. Although cities are being digitally transformed, it still has obstacles along the way. In this paper, we have analyzed different publications for...

Citations

... The COPELABS IoT Testbed [31] comprises, among others, 20 Android smartphones; 2 dedicated machines to support IoT gateways and brokers; 6 Raspberry Pi devices, some of which are attached to temperature/luminosity sensors. Figure 2 provides a simplified illustration of the testbed, where field devices are connected via wireless to an IoT gateway device. ...
... The local testbed is connected both to the Internet and to the experimental NDN worldwide testbed, thus facilitating experimentation of IP-based approaches and of NDN solutions. Further information on the testbed can be found in [31]. ...
Article
Full-text available
IoT data exchange is supported today by different communication protocols and different protocolar frameworks, each of which with its own advantages and disadvantages, and often co-existing in a way that is mandated by vendor policies. Although different protocols are relevant in different domains, there is not a protocol that provides better performance (jitter, latency, energy consumption) across different scenarios. The focus of this work is two-fold. First, to provide a comparison of the different available solutions in terms of protocolar features such as type of transport, type of communication pattern support, security aspects, including Named-data networking as relevant example of an Information-centric networking architecture. Secondly, the work focuses on evaluating three of the most popular protocols used both in Consumer as well as in Industrial IoT environments: MQTT, CoAP, and OPC UA. The experimentation has been carried out first on a local testbed for MQTT, COAP and OPC UA. Then, larger experiments have been carried out for MQTT and CoAP, based on the large-scale FIT-IoT testbed. Results show that CoAP is the protocol that achieves across all scenarios lowest time-to-completion, while OPC UA, albeit exhibiting less variability, resulted in higher time-to-completion in comparison to CoAP or MQTT.