From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:27:34 +0200 From: Antonio Quartulli Message-ID: <20130607172734.GO1789@ritirata.org> References: <20130606055102.GH1789@ritirata.org> <51B0D294.4070809@inti.gob.ar> <20130606182954.GI1789@ritirata.org> <51B0DD43.6090500@inti.gob.ar> <20130606191823.GJ1789@ritirata.org> <51B1E4D6.5000900@inti.gob.ar> <20130607135713.GL1789@ritirata.org> <51B1F062.3060101@inti.gob.ar> <20130607144019.GM1789@ritirata.org> <51B214AE.2090603@inti.gob.ar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Zvl510+jvRFHh8wJ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51B214AE.2090603@inti.gob.ar> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] batctl bw 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 --Zvl510+jvRFHh8wJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Gabriel, On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 02:13:18PM -0300, Gabriel Tol=C3=B3n wrote: >=20 > This time, I logged just from Equipo 1, to generate less traffic. >=20 > I noticed something weird. When I run batctl bw I get this time=20 > something like 12 Mbps. If I wait for about 10 seconds and repeat the=20 > command, I get something similar, but, if I run the command inmediatly=20 > after the bw test finishes, the result improves a lot, here you can see= =20 > the commands with the seconds between them: >=20 >=20 > root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz > Fri Jun 7 16:40:09 UTC 2013 > Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 > Test over in 2000ms. > Sent 3064500 Bytes. > Throughput: 1.46 MB/s (12.26 Mbps) > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz > Fri Jun 7 16:40:15 UTC 2013 > Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 > Test over in 2000ms. > Sent 3201000 Bytes. > Throughput: 1.53 MB/s (12.80 Mbps) > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz > Fri Jun 7 16:40:18 UTC 2013 > Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 > Test over in 2000ms. > Sent 14545500 Bytes. > Throughput: 6.94 MB/s (58.18 Mbps) > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz > Fri Jun 7 16:40:20 UTC 2013 > Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 > Test over in 2000ms. > Sent 18729000 Bytes. > Throughput: 8.93 MB/s (74.91 Mbps) > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz > Fri Jun 7 16:40:23 UTC 2013 > Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 > Test over in 2000ms. > Sent 21067500 Bytes. > Throughput: 10.05 MB/s (84.26 Mbps) > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz > Fri Jun 7 16:40:26 UTC 2013 > Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 > Test over in 2000ms. > Sent 22351500 Bytes. > Throughput: 10.66 MB/s (89.40 Mbps) > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz > Fri Jun 7 16:40:37 UTC 2013 > Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 > Test over in 2000ms. > Sent 13281000 Bytes. > Throughput: 6.33 MB/s (53.12 Mbps) > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# > root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz > Fri Jun 7 16:40:49 UTC 2013 > Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 > Test over in 2000ms. > Sent 3204000 Bytes. > Throughput: 1.53 MB/s (12.82 Mbps) > root@Equipo 1:~# >=20 >=20 > Maybe something in the time calculation is wrong? >=20 This strange. The point is that the receiver takes at least 1 second to shu= tdown the session. Theoretically (and this is what happened during my tests) the receiver should refuse any "second new" connection and the sender should th= en get 0 throughput. Can I ask you what wifi driver is your device using? Anyway, there must be something wrong in the bw meter given that you see th= is behaviour only with it and not with iperf. Did you try a short run over Ethernet? I'm curious to see if the behaviour = will be the same. > The logs aretoo heavy for pastebin, so here it's just the part=20 > corresponding to the first batctl bw in Equipo1: >=20 > http://pastebin.com/THEr2Cq3 >=20 Thanks for the log. I saw something strange: 16:40:09.533172 BAT 64:70:02:4e:d9:43 > E3-5GHz: ICMP BW type MSG (0), id 0= , seq 2018499, ttl 50, v 15, length 1510 16:40:09.533392 BAT 64:70:02:4e:d9:43 > E3-5GHz: ICMP BW type MSG (0), id 0= , seq 2049999, ttl 50, v 15, length 1510 These are two packets sent one after the other but the second sequence numb= er is not equal to the first + 1500 (payload size) > If you want to watch the whole log I can send you, or paste it in parts. >=20 This gave me already some hints. I'll dig into the code to try to spot what= 's wrong. But strange that I did not see any problem during my tests..maybe something introduced later by accident. Thank you so far. I'm still curious about the Ethernet test, then I'll try = to upload some more code to test :) Cheers, --=20 Antonio Quartulli =2E.each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara --Zvl510+jvRFHh8wJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRshgFAAoJEADl0hg6qKeOzloP/3X9vmTKO5gld0sMJSdQmREG XCqLBRT5bIzGuxCpytHa8HnbnE50VlksIGEift+bBcM9q/H5k88pstX0i0aa/vdl ZVbq1WYK0/0r4qbJRNEKh5Vq1mKEp1xJ0XHmWK8eMc+OBnWkAwZKjXCcS5SIRtqJ P45OOB/gxgV2mYZy9LGFOh+tFozT7LmUawA4qT9GUcZXYIiVZ4woECkzUcGYV9YS lJwfbriDNrigkZrPE9IhdhVStRIH0eoLhrF3AY5uT1CZcY9cl/k930X3ZQtvxqjw atgklXDGIasKaPEZdylJ4YHaaY28TD5hxg+TbTMtKPQtudwvLSdDEFwUkFF30T2J Qz8nVSArF8yxvx7mkg0FFFhvAGVG4m8V/9IXLqFLRQoHSPs6UbXLbX3LPZFtnxmL uNxxIEyq2kDAbOHEq7ye+NN/FSyUP97ojvFjP5kFseN0YX6Ojdz9kfW6jac+0KQT KtrxPBTeBCwysPjIwVTzB80KZwIeRr6FbDSm5p/6jH7zH/3BX/0fHViaFvL/7LBf ET7lLK/c8wxn3avPpGebjiqMa5sPwQIT5QMKYHufXokzCMto6lW6V9ST/zq5vSqm OP97QmPx1AFqr1mX9n5VSVqpCK4MmbflNBl0PP1bxDhxHggA3E+QHFMeFcVZjG1G FQGFJEffl4X12adWKYId =oVpe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Zvl510+jvRFHh8wJ--