# A Design of a Lightweight In-Vehicle Edge Gateway for the Self-Diagnosis of an Autonomous Vehicle
## 4 The Performance Analysis
Therefore, the error rate of the proposed method is lower by about 1.3% compared to that of the existing method as the number of messages gets larger. The average error rate of the proposed method is 0.91% and that of the existing method is 1.55%. Figure 13: The error rate according to message quantity. (**a**) The error rate between the CAN and the FlexRay, (**b**) The error rate between the CAN and the MOST, (**c**) The error rate between the CAN and the Ethernet. Second, the error rate was measured when the FlexRay messages are translated into a CAN bus. In the case 50 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 1% and the existing method of 1.2%. In the case 100 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 1.8% and the existing method of 1.9%. In the case 340 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 1.5% and the existing method of 2.09%. Therefore, the error rate of the proposed method is lower by about 0.5% compared to that of the existing method as the number of messages gets larger. The average error rate of the proposed method is 1.59% and that of the existing method is 1.94%. Here, because one FlexRay message was divided into several CAN messages, the average error rate of the second gets higher by about 0.5% compared to that of the first. When messages are sent and received between a CAN bus and a MOST bus, Figure 13b shows the error rate according to the number of messages. The error rate was measured as follows. First, the error rate was measured when the CAN messages are transferred to a MOST bus. In the case 50 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 0% and the existing method 2%. In the case 100 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 1% and the existing method of 1%. In the case 340 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 0.59% and the existing method of 0.88%. Therefore, the error rate of the proposed method is lower by about 0.3% compared to that of the existing method as the number of messages gets larger. The average error rate of the proposed method is 0.45% and that of the existing method is 1.16%. Second, the error rate was measured when the MOST messages are transferred to a CAN bus. In the case 50 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 3% and the existing method of 3.2%. In the case 100 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 2.7% and the existing method of 2.6%. In the case 340 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 2.06% and the existing method of 2.15%. Therefore, the error rate of the proposed method is lower by about 0.1% compared to that of the existing method as the number of messages gets larger. The average error rate of the proposed method is 2.53% and that of the existing method is 2.59%. Here, because one MOST message is divided into several CAN messages, the average error rate of the second gets higher by about 2% compared to that of the first. When messages are sent and received between a CAN bus and an Ethernet bus, Figure 13c shows the error rate according to the number of messages. The error rate was measured as follows. First, the error rate was measured when the CAN messages are transferred to an Ethernet backbone. In the case 50 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 0% and the existing method of 0%. In the case 100 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 0% and the existing method of 0.4%. In the case 340 messages were transferred, the proposed method showed an error rate of 0.41% and the existing method of 0.74%. Therefore, the error rate of the proposed method is lower by about 0.5% compared to that of the existing method as the number of messages gets larger. The average error rate of the proposed method is 0.35% and that of the existing method is 0.55%. Second, the error rate is measured when the Ethernet messages are transferred to a CAN bus.