Table 4.
Comparison of the results of each algorithm in the two scenarios when traffic is small 1.
| Beam Hopping Scheme | Traffic Distribution |
Throughput (Gbps) |
Access Success Rate |
Average Delay (ms) |
Delay Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polling-BH | even | 1.734 | 93.2% | 90.38 | 5910 |
| uneven | 1.172 | 63.4% | 178.25 | 11,336 | |
| Random-BH | even | 1.222 | 65.7% | 248.94 | 4754 |
| uneven | 0.852 | 46.1% | 214.55 | 7393 | |
| GAWIC-BH | even | 1.804 | 97.0% | 71.99 | 85 |
| uneven | 1.790 | 96.9% | 59.27 | 1471 | |
| Proposed Algorithm | even | 1.808 | 97.2% | 66.06 | 74 |
| uneven | 1.797 | 97.3% | 52.95 | 1188 |
1 Small traffic demand is defined as: Poisson arrival intensity is 400 packages under even distribution, 2100 in hotspots and 210 in non-hotspots under uneven distribution.