From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sw@simonwunderlich.de>
From: Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:52:21 +0200
Message-ID: <2676492.mH3y7FRmKn@prime>
In-Reply-To: <d45jj1bb42of1liops4p7fi7.1413160019506@email.android.com>
References: <d45jj1bb42of1liops4p7fi7.1413160019506@email.android.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] batman-adv bonding feature - unable to get data
	packets fragmented into multiple wireless interfaces
Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
 <b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
 <b.a.t.m.a.n.lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.open-mesh.org/mm/options/b.a.t.m.a.n>,
 <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.open-mesh.org/pipermail/b.a.t.m.a.n/>
List-Post: <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.open-mesh.org/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n>,
 <mailto:b.a.t.m.a.n-request@lists.open-mesh.org?subject=subscribe>
To: syedmoulana47 <syedmoulana47@gmail.com>
Cc: "b.a.t.m.a.n" <b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org>

Hello Syed,

thanks for testing.

Please don't send HTML mails to the mailing list, they will get rejected.

Thank you
    Simon

On Monday 13 October 2014 08:26:59 syedmoulana47 wrote:
> I am using batman-adv: 2012.5.0. I tried with version 2014.3.0 also.
> 
> Even without enabling bonding sometimes I can see simultaneous outbound udp
> traffic in both interfaces wlan0 and wlan1.
> 
> I will try with the patch and update.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my Xiaomi
> 
> On 11 Oct 2014 03:03, Simon Wunderlich <sw@simonwunderlich.de> wrote:
> Hey Syed,
> 
> which version of batman-adv are you using?
> 
> Please note there is a fix for a bonding problem which hasn't been merged
> yet, 
 please merge it manually for your tests (assuming you are using a
> recent version)
> 
> https://lists.open-mesh.org/pipermail/b.a.t.m.a.n/2014-August/012382.html
> 
> Also bonding has nothing to do with fragmentation - the idea of bonding is 
> that the packets should not be split, but get sent interleaved over the
> interfaces, e.g.
> 
> * wlan 1 - packet 1
> * wlan 2 - packet 2
> * wlan 1 - packet 3
> * wlan 2 - packet 4
> * etc ...
> 
> To have a real gain from that, the two links must be equally good quality. 
> Also deep queues in the driver may cause reordering of packets which will
> upset TCP. The best results I've seen in the past were 50% performance gain
> over a single link, but I didn't try it out in real world scenarios lately.
> 
> Thanks,
>     Simon
> On Tuesday 07 October 2014 17:27:50 syed moulana wrote:
> 
> > hi
> > 
> > I tested the throughput between point to point mesh nodes using single
> > and 2 radios.
> > 
> > 1.  Using single radio (ch 5180)  the resulting throughput for HT40+
> >
> >            TCP max 250mbit/s
> >            UDP - max 320mbit/s
> >
> > 
> > 2. Using 2 radios with and without batctl bonding enabled (ch 5180 for
> > wlan0, ch 5785 for wlan1), the resulting throughput for HT40+ is same.
> >
> >            with batctl bonding and fragmentation enabled I believed I
> >
> > should be getting 50% gain in througput.
> >
> >     When I monitor the wlan0 and wlan1 interfaces using batctl tcpdump
> >
> > -p 4 wlanx I can see that iperf data are interleaved.
> >
> >     There is no splitting of data frames into 2 wireless interfaces.
> >
> > 
> > Please advice
> > 
> > Tq
> > 
> > Syed