Performance evaluation of MQTT and CoAP via a common middleware

By Dinesh Thangavel, Xiaoping Ma, A. Valera, Hwee-Xian Tan, C. Tan. International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing, 2014

445 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a62883faeadc89a7be236b3330dc4d2e619e3855

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

Citations in the corpus

Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP (2017, methodology): “sensor updates) in constrained network such as MQTT and CoAP [7], [8], [9].”
Mosquitto: server and client implementation of the MQTT protocol (2017, methodology): “…library written in C, with a C++ wrapper Mosquitto allows research directly related to the MQTT protocol itself, such as comparing the performance of MQTT and the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) (Thangavel et al. 2014) or investigating the use of OAuth in MQTT (Fremantle et al. 2014).”
Fog Computing for Sustainable Smart Cities (2017, methodology): “As a result, it requires a message broker to manage and route messages be-tween connected ICOs [Thangavel et al. 2014].”
Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and Applications (2015, methodology): “For example, [78] compares the performance of MQTT and CoAP in terms of end-”
A Survey of Communication Protocols for Internet of Things and Related Challenges of Fog and Cloud Computing Integration (2018, methodology): “ls Bandwidth Energy Developer’s Protocol Latency utilization consumption Security choice and throughput REST HTTP [95,96,101,102] [103,107] [96,110] [52,53] ✓ [16,95,103,105] [96–98] MQTT [88,99,100] [87,97,104,107] [96,108,109,111] [77] ✓ [16,49,104] [97–100] [61–63] CoAP [101–104] [87,97,103,107] ”