{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0344275420336269, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008006405124099279, 'mean_word_length': 5.009615384615385, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Performance Analysis of WMN-GA System for Different WMN Architectures and TCP Congestion-Avoidance Algorithms

In this paper, we evaluate the performance of two Wireless Mesh Networks (WMNs) architectures considering throughput, delay, jitter, fairness index, queue and remaining energy metrics. For simulations, we used ns-3, Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) and Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR). We compare the performance for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Tahoe, Reno and NewReno for normal distribution of mesh clients by sending multiple Constant Bit Rate (CBR) flows in the network. The simulation results show that for both WMN architectures, the PDR values of TCP congestion-avoidance algorithms are almost the same. For I/B WMN architecture, the throughput of TCP congestionavoidance algorithms is almost the same. However, for Hybrid WMN, the throughput of TCP NewReno is higher than other algorithms. The delay and jitter of I/B WMN are lower compared with Hybrid WMN. The fairness index of Hybrid WMN is higher than I/B WMN. For both WMN architectures, the queue size is almost the same. For both WMN architectures, the energy decreases sharply, but for TCP Reno the remaining energy of Hybrid WMN is higher than I/B WMN.