From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <51B214AE.2090603@inti.gob.ar> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:13:18 -0300 From: =?UTF-8?B?R2FicmllbCBUb2zDs24=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <51AF567A.7030404@inti.gob.ar> <51AF58F4.8080501@inti.gob.ar> <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> In-Reply-To: <20130607144019.GM1789@ritirata.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org El 07/06/13 11:40, Antonio Quartulli escribió: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:38:26AM -0300, Gabriel Tolón wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> El 07/06/13 10:57, Antonio Quartulli escribió: >>> Hi Gabriel, >>> >>> thank you for your logs >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:49:10AM -0300, Gabriel Tolón wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Gabriel, >>>>> there is a lot of noise because you are also generating traffic on the network. >>>>> However I can see the ICMP Echo Request and then an Echo Reply, therefore the >>>>> two nodes seem to be exchanging ICMP packets correctly. >>>>> >>>>> I'm checking again to try to understand what went wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile, can you please report the output of >>>>> "batctl l" >>>>> during a bw test after having set the bw_meter log level by running >>>>> "batctl ll bwm" ? >>>>> >>>>> To get the exact log of one test, you can first run batctl l (this will print >>>>> all the past log), then you run the test and then you run batctl l again to >>>>> obtain the interesting log. Please upload it on pastebin too. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks a lot! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, here they are: >>>> >>>> http://pastebin.com/fLu9hsyt >>>> >>> >>> >>> From this log I can see that the protocol is entering Fast Retransmit many times >>> and this happens due to reordering or small losses (the latter option is more >>> realistic on a single hop network - but is it really one hop? I never asked). >> >> Yes, it's one hop. Just two routers at a distance of 2 meters. They have >> two radios, but in the last tests I've unloaded one of them (the 5 Ghz >> one) to make it simpler, so they see each other just by one radio interface. >> >>> >>> The other strange thing I see is the final SRTT value which is 260ms and looks >>> pretty high. Is there anything else going on the network (other traffic or..)? >> >> Mmm, I don't know what's that SRTT, but no, there shouldn't be anything >> else in the air, at least not from me. But If there were interference or >> something like that, normal iperf would be slower I guess. >> >> Besides, now I've tested connecting my PC via Ethernet to log avoiding >> interference from myself, also unloading the 2GHz, and loading the 5GHz >> in the routers (the 5GHz band should be cleaner), and the batctl bw >> keeps with slower values than iperf, 5Mbps this time. >> >> If you want I could sniff the air with wireshark or something. >> >> Maybe other possibility could be testing the bw meter connecting the >> routers by etnernet and not wirelessly? > > Yes, you can try ethernet too. it works the same way. > >> >> Just for curiosity, you have already tested this on other scenarios and >> worked OK? > > yeah, I tested it using my routers (OM2Ps) and it worked good. > > You can try to sniff one or two seconds of traffic with "batctl td" > on the nodes. This will give us what is exactly going in the air. > > Cheers, > > This time, I logged just from Equipo 1, to generate less traffic. I noticed something weird. When I run batctl bw I get this time something like 12 Mbps. If I wait for about 10 seconds and repeat the command, I get something similar, but, if I run the command inmediatly after the bw test finishes, the result improves a lot, here you can see the commands with the seconds between them: 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:~# Maybe something in the time calculation is wrong? The logs are too heavy for pastebin, so here it's just the part corresponding to the first batctl bw in Equipo1: http://pastebin.com/THEr2Cq3 If you want to watch the whole log I can send you, or paste it in parts. Regards