## 6 Scheduling Algorithm Performance Test Using TLS-VaD
### Results and Discussion
It can be seen that the number of cycles in IRByTSA (\(C_{\text{IRByTSA}}\)) was always smaller than the number of cycles in FTSA (\(C_{\text{FTSA}}\)), and this occurred in scenarios I and II. As the network size increased, the difference between the values of \(C_{\text{IRByTSA}}\) and \(C_{\text{FTSA}}\) became even greater. Based on these data, it was conclusive that in terms of speed in generating scheduling decisions, IRByTSA performed better than FTSA. IRByTSA required fewer cycles, because the process of providing transmission opportunities among child nodes was based on the turn. This highlights that it is important to apply procedure 7 in Table 1 to algorithms that give high priority to higher-rank nodes, such as IRByTSA and FTSA. Meanwhile, in terms of the number of cycle parameters, FLSA shows the best performance, as indicated by the fewest cycles (\(\mathrm{C_{FLSA}}\)) compared to \(\mathrm{C_{IRByTSA}}\) and \(\mathrm{C_{FTSA}}\), for both scenarios I and II. This result is proof that link-scheduling algorithms with priority transmission from leaf nodes will produce scheduling decisions faster than algorithms prioritizing higher-rank nodes. The differences between \(\mathrm{C_{FLSA}}\), \(\mathrm{C_{IRByTSA}}\), and \(\mathrm{C_{FTSA}}\) are shown in Table 9. The greatest difference between \(\mathrm{C_{IRByTSA}}\) and \(\mathrm{C_{FLSA}}\) lies in four cycles, while between \(\mathrm{C_{FTSA}}\) and \(\mathrm{C_{FLSA}}\) it is seven cycles, all of which occur in scenario II with a network dimension of 100 nodes. Based on this difference, the actual performance of IRByTSA in terms of the number of cycles is almost close to FLSA, because the difference between the two is only four cycles for network dimensions ranging from 10 to 100 nodes. Figure 39: Number of cycles in IRByTSA, FTSA, and FLSA. Figure 38: Duty cycles of IRByTSA, FTSA, and FLSA. The performance of scheduling algorithms in terms of the need for channel offsets is presented in Figure 40. Through this figure we could compare the number of channel offsets required by each algorithm in the process of collecting all data at the master node. Meanwhile, the exact number of required channel offsets is presented in Table 7. The data show that IRByTSA usually requires fewer ChOffs than FTSA, especially in the same scenario and in large network dimensions. However, when compared to FLSA, IRByTSA needs more ChOffs. Figure 40 shows that with increased network size, the amount of ChOffs in IRByTSA was generally smaller than that in FTSA, but it was always greater than that in FLSA. In fact, the more important thing to observe from ChOff data was ChOffs per cycle (ChOff/C), because ChOff/C will show the average number of ChOffs used in each cycle. As previously stated, according to the 802.15.4e standard, the number of available ChOffs is 16 channels. If there are more than 16, several transmissions will use the same channel offset, which can increase interference opportunities. Thus, the smaller the value of ChOff/C, the better, because it can reduce the possibility of interference. ChOff/C data are presented in Table 10, and based on the table, although these data for the scheduling algorithms varied in size, they show that the three algorithms had almost the same performance. The table shows that the value of ChOff/C for each scheduling algorithm was not much different in scenarios I and II. The performance of FTSA was usually below that of IRByTSA and FLSA, but based on ChOff/C, FTSA had the smallest ChOff/C value on a network dimension of 100 nodes for both scenario I and II. This shows that based on ChOff/C data, the three scheduling algorithms had relatively similar performance. Figure 40: Total required channel offset of IRByTSA, FTSA, and FLSA.