From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:46:00 +0100 From: Simon Wunderlich Message-ID: <20111206094600.GA9559@pandem0nium> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] about batman performance 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 --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello zb1981gm (btw, do you have a real name?), On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:01:13PM +0800, zb1981gm wrote: > I have used batman on my project for several months.It performs very well= ,stable especially!=20 > But,actually,I am not satisfied with the performance of Batman.I found th= at the bandwidth would drop sharply with the wireless hop increase.=20 > Now I provide my test result here:=20 >=20 > routerA and routerB is composed of compex wp543ahv mainboard (AR7161 plat= form) and two AR9220 wireless card.Firmware is Openwrt backfire.=20 > one card is working on 2.4G channel as AP mode,the other is working on 5G= channel as mesh backbone =20 > batman version:2.0=20 What is batman version 2.0? We have batmand (layer 3), but I guess you are = using batman advanced as you talk about bonding/interface alternating later. These have 0.X (for = old releases) or 201X.Y.Z version schemes (since 2 years). Please clarify. > notebook1 and notebook2 is equiped with 802.11n usb wireless card which a= ccess to the AP mode card of routerA and routerB=20 >=20 > channel 1 channel 36 channel 11= =20 > notebook1 --------------- routerA -------------- routerB --------------= notebook2=20 >=20 > I use iperf to test bandwidth=20 >=20 > notebook1 ----------- routerA 45Mbps=20 > routerA ----------- routerB 46Mbps=20 > routerB ----------- notebook2 45Mbps=20 >=20 > But the bandwidth between notebook1 and notebook2 remains 8Mbps=20 > bandwidth between notebook1 and routerB remain 18Mbps=20 Have you compared this to static routing? >=20 > So the conclution is that the bandwidth will be halfed with the 1 hop inc= rease! right?=20 It should not, as different radio modules are used (and correctly tuned on = different channels). However, you may have a limitation in your CPU power or something else.=20 You may want to try static routing to find this out. >=20 > I also found that the interface alternating mode and bonding mode doesn't= take effect=20 >=20 > channel 1=20 > routerA ------------------ routerB=20 > channel 36=20 >=20 > The test result is no difference whatever I configured alternating or bon= ding or just single radio=20 To make bonding work, there are a few conditions: * routers must be equipped with multiple radios which can connect to each = other * activate bonding (batctl bonding 1) * make sure the transmit qualities are similar (check with batctl o), shou= ld not be more than a difference of 50 If everything is fine, you can get a boost of approx. 50%. >=20 > According to the batman official site, alternating or bonding mode would = improve the performance compared with the single radio mode=20 >=20 Yup, it should help. Alternating is not helping in your scenario as far as = I understand (your mesh is only 1 hop long, as notebooks are connected via infrastructure mode= ). Bonding may help as described above. best regards, Simon --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk7d5FgACgkQrzg/fFk7axbJFwCeIz8H/LwfUzm3WBpupj4l/f6Y XvwAn0D8bgQxpiT1tzY9/zokgFZRq3Rz =jW9z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ--