Dear all,
I'm doing a research project and currently experimenting with NS3 LTE. I found one interesting observation but I don't know why: I found that for some cases, same amount of PRBs will be allocated to 2 competing UEs, while these 2 UEs' rate are pretty different.
Setup:
To be concrete, there is 1 BS and 2 UEs, no interference or fading, UEs are collocated, only 10m away to the BS.
Two RH are sending data to UEs, but with different rate (so only DL traffic):
- One UE is a heavy UE, whose RH's sending rate is fixed at 3Mb/s;
- The other UE is a light UE, I vary its RH's sending rate, from 0.1Mb/s to 1Mb/s.
FYI, both RH's sending rate is pretty low, such traffic would not congest the BS.
Observation & Question:
I found that, when the light UE's sending rate is at 0.5Mb/s, it already gets the same amount of PRBs compared to the heavy UE (both of them get 6000 PRBs per second, and FYI, I see in total 12000 PRBs for every second), but its rate is only 1/6 of the heavy UE. I wonder what is the reason of this? Why the same amount of PRBs can achieve so different rate?
A relevant question, does this observation related to congestion? In my settings there is no congestion at all (traffic is low), so PRBs are used inefficiently? And if I make the BS congested, then all PRBs will be used equally efficiently and I will see same amount of PRBs can achieve the same rate? (FYI, I observed that using my method of counting PRBs, there are always 12000 PRBs per second, and I see that actually all the PRBs are allocated in my experiment, let me know if this does not make sense to you).
How I count PRB per UE:
The way I'm counting each UE's PRB is, by modifying proportional-fair scheduler (pf-ff-mac-scheduler.cc), and maintaining a counter for each UE (rnti) and log each UE's allocated # of PRBs.
(More detail: in pf-ff-mac-scheduler.cc, for each PRB, it calculates the maximum rcqi and this PRB goes to the UE with highest rcqi. I add 1 for the UE with maximum rcqi for every PRB. I clear counters for every second to get # of PRBs per second).
The two posts describe the same issue.
Thanks,
Xing