[B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[marco tozzini]

This is my typical view, of my batman fonera stations, from my batman 
laptop (with atheros wifi pcmcia)

  Originator  (#/255)         Nexthop [outgoingIF]:   Potential nexthops 
... [B.A.T.M.A.N. 0.3, MainIF/IP: wlan1/192.168.2.65, UT: 0d 0h36m]
192.168.2.200   (245)   192.168.2.200 [     wlan1]:   192.168.2.200 
(245)   192.168.2.203 (211)   192.168.2.201 (244)
192.168.2.201   (253)   192.168.2.201 [     wlan1]:   192.168.2.201 
(253)   192.168.2.200 (234)   192.168.2.203 (209)
192.168.2.203   (233)   192.168.2.200 [     wlan1]:   192.168.2.203 
(231)   192.168.2.200 (233)   192.168.2.201 (231)

from my laptop
fping -c 1000 -g 192.168.2.200/30

and this is the results
192.168.2.200 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/928/7%, min/avg/max = 1.23/2.04/92.8
192.168.2.201 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/759/24%, min/avg/max = 1.28/3.11/27.5
192.168.2.203 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/766/23%, min/avg/max = 1.33/3.36/38.7

I don't think it's normal, isn't it?

Ciao
Marco

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[Marek Lindner]

On Saturday 21 March 2009 05:15:14 marco tozzini wrote:
> and this is the results
> 192.168.2.200 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/928/7%, min/avg/max = 1.23/2.04/92.8
> 192.168.2.201 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/759/24%, min/avg/max = 1.28/3.11/27.5
> 192.168.2.203 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/766/23%, min/avg/max = 1.33/3.36/38.7
>
> I don't think it's normal, isn't it?

What exactly are you referring to ? Are you wondering why the packet loss of 
fping is higher than predicted by batman ?

Regards,
Marek

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[marco tozzini]

Marek Lindner wrote:
> On Saturday 21 March 2009 05:15:14 marco tozzini wrote:
>   
>> and this is the results
>> 192.168.2.200 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/928/7%, min/avg/max = 1.23/2.04/92.8
>> 192.168.2.201 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/759/24%, min/avg/max = 1.28/3.11/27.5
>> 192.168.2.203 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/766/23%, min/avg/max = 1.33/3.36/38.7
>>
>> I don't think it's normal, isn't it?
>>     
>
> What exactly are you referring to ? Are you wondering why the packet loss of 
> fping is higher than predicted by batman ?
>
> Regards,
> Marek
>
>   
Hi Merek
 From batman debug output it seems batman station has a good view one to 
each other, but working on this systems is very annoying:
ssh terminal has a wobbling response to commands

Is this the behavior I shall expect from a good working mesh system?

Ciao
Marco

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[Antonio Anselmi]

Marco

can you post the 802.11 and inet configurations of the involved iface
(I think wlan1) and a memory usage hwile batmand is running?

Antonio

On Sat, March 21, 2009 8:49, marco tozzini said:
> Marek Lindner wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 March 2009 05:15:14 marco tozzini wrote:
>>
>>> and this is the results
>>> 192.168.2.200 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/928/7%, min/avg/max =
>>> 1.23/2.04/92.8
>>> 192.168.2.201 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/759/24%, min/avg/max =
>>> 1.28/3.11/27.5
>>> 192.168.2.203 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/766/23%, min/avg/max =
>>> 1.33/3.36/38.7
>>>
>>> I don't think it's normal, isn't it?
>>>
>>
>> What exactly are you referring to ? Are you wondering why the packet
>> loss of
>> fping is higher than predicted by batman ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marek
>>
>>
> Hi Merek
>  From batman debug output it seems batman station has a good view one
> to
> each other, but working on this systems is very annoying:
> ssh terminal has a wobbling response to commands
>
> Is this the behavior I shall expect from a good working mesh system?
>
> Ciao
> Marco
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> B.A.T.M.A.N mailing list
> B.A.T.M.A.N@open-mesh.net
> https://lists.open-mesh.net/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n
>

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[Marek Lindner]

On Saturday 21 March 2009 15:49:46 marco tozzini wrote:
>  From batman debug output it seems batman station has a good view one to
> each other, but working on this systems is very annoying:
> ssh terminal has a wobbling response to commands
>
> Is this the behavior I shall expect from a good working mesh system?

Please keep in mind what batman is doing to obtain these results: It 
broadcasts packets and receives broadcasts. From that it tries to give an 
estimation about the networks status and the link conditions. Obviously, you 
can't derive latency or bandwidth throughput from this information base. 

Lets look at your fping test: Usually batman broadcasts are sent once a 
second. While rebroadcasting a jitter is applied to reduce the probability of 
collisions with other batman packets. When you run fping on 192.168.2.200/30 
you will generate traffic that has a high probability of collisions which will 
lead to different test results.

If you compare test mechanisms make sure they run under the same conditions 
otherwise it does not make sense to draw conclusions from it. The batman TQ 
value tells you how batman sees the link at this specific time - nothing more 
or less. This is an approximation of the reality. If you have ideas how to 
improve it let us know. Meanwhile, we can try to help getting your wifi up to 
speed (see antonios mail).  :-)

Regards,
Marek

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[Bastian Bittorf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 725 bytes --]

* Marek Lindner <lindner_marek@yahoo.de> [21.03.2009 09:45]:

> or less. This is an approximation of the reality. If you have ideas how to 
> improve it let us know. Meanwhile, we can try to help getting your wifi up to 
> speed (see antonios mail).  :-)

in OLSR networks we change the multicast-rate, to allow only links
with "reasonable" bandwith to be used. Maybe this is also a good
idea for batman. In a dense network, set you multicast-rate to
12mbit on all nodes, in a "normal" network you can use e.g. 5.5 mbit.
(this helps the routing daemon and does nearly not change the
normal network behavior)

important question:
are batman-adv-packets transfered in multicast-rate?

greets,
Bastian Bittorf

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[Marek Lindner]

On Saturday 21 March 2009 16:53:36 Bastian Bittorf wrote:
> in OLSR networks we change the multicast-rate, to allow only links
> with "reasonable" bandwith to be used. Maybe this is also a good
> idea for batman. In a dense network, set you multicast-rate to
> 12mbit on all nodes, in a "normal" network you can use e.g. 5.5 mbit.
> (this helps the routing daemon and does nearly not change the
> normal network behavior)

Basically I agree here. Setting the transfer rate helps stabilizing the 
network. Not so sure why you say "in OLSR networks" as this is more a wifi 
setting rather than a mesh protocol thing. Is that integrated into OLSR ?


> important question:
> are batman-adv-packets transfered in multicast-rate?

batman-adv-packets are ethernet broadcast packets and follow the same 
broadcast mechanisms as IP broadcasts.

Regards,
Marek

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[marco tozzini]

marco tozzini wrote:
>
> from my laptop
> fping -c 1000 -g 192.168.2.200/30
>
> and this is the results
> 192.168.2.200 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/928/7%, min/avg/max = 1.23/2.04/92.8
> 192.168.2.201 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/759/24%, min/avg/max = 
> 1.28/3.11/27.5
> 192.168.2.203 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/766/23%, min/avg/max = 
> 1.33/3.36/38.7
>
Just for completeness ... here it is (almost) the same test with OLSRd

192.168.2.200 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/902/9%, min/avg/max = 1.27/2.39/35.3
192.168.2.201 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/815/18%, min/avg/max = 1.28/3.80/73.6
192.168.2.203 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/821/17%, min/avg/max = 1.31/3.56/122

;)

Ciao
Marco

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[L. Aaron Kaplan]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 10:40 PM, marco tozzini wrote:

> marco tozzini wrote:
>>
>> from my laptop
>> fping -c 1000 -g 192.168.2.200/30
>>
>> and this is the results
>> 192.168.2.200 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/928/7%, min/avg/max =  
>> 1.23/2.04/92.8
>> 192.168.2.201 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/759/24%, min/avg/max =  
>> 1.28/3.11/27.5
>> 192.168.2.203 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/766/23%, min/avg/max =  
>> 1.33/3.36/38.7
>>
> Just for completeness ... here it is (almost) the same test with OLSRd
>
> 192.168.2.200 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/902/9%, min/avg/max =  
> 1.27/2.39/35.3
> 192.168.2.201 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/815/18%, min/avg/max =  
> 1.28/3.80/73.6
> 192.168.2.203 : xmt/rcv/%loss = 1000/821/17%, min/avg/max =  
> 1.31/3.56/122
>

which proves that batman finds better routes ;-))))

LOL, sorry could not resist :)
(joke!)

you obviously have a different problem here than routing protocols.

Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] What do you think of this result?

[Marco Tozzini]

----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "Antonio Anselmi" 
> Marco
> 
> can you post the 802.11 and inet configurations of the
> involved iface (I think wlan1) and a memory usage hwile
> batmand is running?
> 
> Antonio
> 

Hi Antonio,

Sorry I read your message after dismission of the system
I hope I can replicate the system again and post
informations you required

Thanks
Marco