Performance Analysis of Sparse Traffic Grooming in WDM Mesh Networks

Sparse traffic grooming is a practical problem to be addressed in heterogeneous multi-vendor optical WDM networks where only some of the optical cross-connects (OXCs) have grooming capabilities. Such a network is called as a sparse grooming network. The sparse grooming problem under dynamic traffic in optical WDM mesh networks is a relatively unexplored problem. In this work, we propose the maximize-lightpath-sharing multi-hop (MLS-MH) grooming algorithm to support dynamic traffic grooming in sparse grooming networks. We also present an analytical model to evaluate the blocking performance of the MLS-MH algorithm. Simulation results show that MLSMH outperforms an existing grooming algorithm, the shortest path single-hop (SPSH) algorithm. The numerical results from analysis show that it matches closely with the simulation. The effect of the number of grooming nodes in the network on the blocking performance is also analyzed.

Linkage & Selective Mapping and QTL Analysis in a Harosoy x Clark population of 300 RILs

Four of the 12 major Glycine max ancestors of all modern elite U.S.A. soybean cultivars were the grandparents of Harosoy and Clark, so a Harosoy x Clark population would include some of that genetic diversity. A mating of eight Harosoy and eight Clark plants generated eight F1 plants. The eight F1:2 families were advanced via a plant-to-row selfing method to produce 300 F6-derived RILs that were genotyped with 266 SSR, 481 SNP, and 4 classical markers. SNPs were genotyped with the Illumina 1536-SNP assay. Three linkage maps, SSR, SNP, and SSR-SNP, were constructed with a genotyping error of < 1 %. Each map was compared with the published soybean consensus map. The best subset of 94 RILs for a high-resolution framework (joint) map was selected based on the expected bin length statistic computed with MapPop. The QTLs of seven traits measured in a 2-year replicated performance trial of the 300 RILs were identified using composite interval mapping (CIM) and multiple-interval mapping (MIM). QTL x Year effects in multiple trait analysis were compared with results of multiple-interval mapping. QTL x QTL effects were identified in MIM.