From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:30:17 +0200 From: Benjamin Henrion Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Multiple radios to improve throughput Message-ID: <20080603233017.GU2265@localhost> References: <48448358.4070505@changind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48448358.4070505@changind.com> Sender: Benjamin Henrion Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking Shane Chao [080603]: > Elektra, > > Thank you for pointing out in May 08 that most embedded boards do not > have enough CPU power to saturate the capacity of single radio link. I > was experimenting Batman in a straight line, three node configuration > with the middle node having two radios so it doesn't have to switch > between node 1 and node 3. My configuration is as follows: > > node 1 node 2 node 3 > ------ ------ ------ > ath0 <--ch 1--> ath0 > ath1 <--ch 11-> ath0 > > When I ran iperf between node 1 and 3, I did not see any throughput > improvements with either one or two radios in node 2. I even stopped > Batman and manually setup the routes and the performance remains the > same. However, when I upgrade node 2 from a 200MHz CPU board to a > 500MHz CPU board, the bandwidth went up 50%. So thanks again for > pointing out my bottleneck:) > > Lastly, can someone suggest some embedded boards fast enough to push > wifi radios to its limits? Make a test with 2 atheros minipci cards on a Alix 3C3 (500mhz) and try to find out if the CPU is saturated. -- Benjamin Henrion FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403