[Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB Motes
Hi all, I tried to use the LowPowerListening Mode on some Iris Motes, but I loose a lot of Packets when the motes aren't powered up the same time. I have tested the test/TestLpl App and also adapted the test/cc2420/LplUnicastPeriodicDelivery App so it should work with the Iris Mote. But after installing it on 2 Motes only very few packets reach the target. On the other Hand when I install the same code (with CC2420ActiveMessageC instead of RF230ActiveMessageC) on 2 TelosB Motes it works as expected. I have measured the current consumption and the Receiver Mote falls asleep and wakes up when a packet is transmitted. So what's the difference between the two implementations of Low Power Listening. I thought that technique should work on both platforms. And is there a way to solve that problem? Thanks Horst Huchen ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
[Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB, Motes
Hi Christian, I have successfully changed the CCA check rate on my motes, but sadly is does not have any effect on my Packet loss rates. I tried values between 1U to 50L an proofed it with an Oscilloscope. I also tried to switch RF230_HARDWARE_ACK on but the result stays the same. Do have another idea how to fix that problem? Horst P.s.: LowPowerListeningLayerP.nc is in tos/chips/rf2xx/layers 2011/6/15 Christian Haas > On 06/15/2011 02:02 PM, Horst Huchen wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks for this hint. I've measured the CCA check length an you're right > on > > TelosB motes it's about 10 ms and on Iris Motes 5ms. > > But I can't find any value like MAX_LPL_CCA_CHECKS for the RF230 > > Transceiver. So I'm not able to change this interval. It seems that the > > MAX_LPL_CCA_CHECKS value only works for the CC2420 chip. > > Yes, the RF230 LPL is implemented in another way. > > You can find the value > > // minimum wakeup time to catch a transmission in milliseconds > LISTEN_WAKEUP = 6U, // use xxxL if LISTEN_WAKEUP * 1 > 65535 > > in the file LowPowerListeningLayerP.nc in tos/chips/rfxx/util. > > Christian > > > > -- > Dipl. Inform. Christian Haas > Karlsruher Institut für Technologie > TM Prof. Dr. Zitterbart > Raum 102, Geb. 20.50 > Engesserstraße 2 Rechts > 76128 Karlsruhe > Germany > > Tel.: +49 721 608-48673 > Email:h...@tm.uka.de > Jabber-ID: h...@tm.uka.de > > > ___ > Tinyos-help mailing list > Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu > https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help > ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB, Motes
Hey, the difference that causes your problem is most likely the CCA check length and the way it is implemented. The CCA check length on the Iris mote is a bit short compared to the time between two preamble parts(...causing packet losses for me, around 30-40%). Increasing the cca check time should give you better results. For the CC2420 we found that MAX_LPL_CCA_CHECKS works best for the value 1600 (~approx. 10ms CCA check length), for Iris motes increasing the cca check value from 5ms to something around 7-8ms should work for you. Good Luck -- Dipl. Inform. Christian Haas Karlsruher Institut für Technologie TM Prof. Dr. Zitterbart Raum 102, Geb. 20.50 Engesserstraße 2 Rechts 76128 Karlsruhe Germany Tel.: +49 721 608-48673 Email:h...@tm.uka.de Jabber-ID: h...@tm.uka.de ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB, Motes
Hi, thanks for this hint. I've measured the CCA check length an you're right on TelosB motes it's about 10 ms and on Iris Motes 5ms. But I can't find any value like MAX_LPL_CCA_CHECKS for the RF230 Transceiver. So I'm not able to change this interval. It seems that the MAX_LPL_CCA_CHECKS value only works for the CC2420 chip. 2011/6/15 Christian Haas > Hey, > > the difference that causes your problem is most likely the CCA check > length and the way it is implemented. > > The CCA check length on the Iris mote is a bit short compared to the > time between two preamble parts(...causing packet losses for me, around > 30-40%). Increasing the cca check time should give you better results. > > For the CC2420 we found that MAX_LPL_CCA_CHECKS works best for the value > 1600 (~approx. 10ms CCA check length), for Iris motes increasing the cca > check value from 5ms to something around 7-8ms should work for you. > > Good Luck > > -- > Dipl. Inform. Christian Haas > Karlsruher Institut für Technologie > TM Prof. Dr. Zitterbart > Raum 102, Geb. 20.50 > Engesserstraße 2 Rechts > 76128 Karlsruhe > Germany > > Tel.: +49 721 608-48673 > Email:h...@tm.uka.de > Jabber-ID: h...@tm.uka.de > > > ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB, Motes
Hi Horst,
Are you using the latest version from tinyos-main? You can change the
listen length in RF230RadioP.nc (chips/rf230) with this function:
command uint16_t LowPowerListeningConfig.getListenLength() { return 5; }
For us LPL on IRIS works perfectly fine.
Best,
Miklos
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Horst Huchen
wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> I have successfully changed the CCA check rate on my motes, but sadly is
> does not have any effect on my Packet loss rates. I tried values between 1U
> to 50L an proofed it with an Oscilloscope. I also tried to switch
> RF230_HARDWARE_ACK on but the result stays the same.
> Do have another idea how to fix that problem?
>
> Horst
> P.s.: LowPowerListeningLayerP.nc is in tos/chips/rf2xx/layers
>
> 2011/6/15 Christian Haas
>>
>> On 06/15/2011 02:02 PM, Horst Huchen wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > thanks for this hint. I've measured the CCA check length an you're right
>> > on
>> > TelosB motes it's about 10 ms and on Iris Motes 5ms.
>> > But I can't find any value like MAX_LPL_CCA_CHECKS for the RF230
>> > Transceiver. So I'm not able to change this interval. It seems that the
>> > MAX_LPL_CCA_CHECKS value only works for the CC2420 chip.
>>
>> Yes, the RF230 LPL is implemented in another way.
>>
>> You can find the value
>>
>> // minimum wakeup time to catch a transmission in milliseconds
>> LISTEN_WAKEUP = 6U, // use xxxL if LISTEN_WAKEUP * 1 > 65535
>>
>> in the file LowPowerListeningLayerP.nc in tos/chips/rfxx/util.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dipl. Inform. Christian Haas
>> Karlsruher Institut für Technologie
>> TM Prof. Dr. Zitterbart
>> Raum 102, Geb. 20.50
>> Engesserstraße 2 Rechts
>> 76128 Karlsruhe
>> Germany
>>
>> Tel.: +49 721 608-48673
>> Email:h...@tm.uka.de
>> Jabber-ID: h...@tm.uka.de
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tinyos-help mailing list
>> Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
>> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
>
>
> ___
> Tinyos-help mailing list
> Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
>
___
Tinyos-help mailing list
Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB, Motes
On 06/15/2011 04:48 PM, Miklos Maroti wrote:
> Hi Horst,
>
> Are you using the latest version from tinyos-main? You can change the
> listen length in RF230RadioP.nc (chips/rf230) with this function:
>
> command uint16_t LowPowerListeningConfig.getListenLength(){ return 5; }
>
> For us LPL on IRIS works perfectly fine.
Hi all,
perfectly fine is not the thing i see when using Iris and LPL .)
Even in a simple scenario with 1 sender and 1 host you will see a lot of
packages lost(>30% for me).
We had the same thing on Micaz nodes using the the default values for
the CCA check. When increasing the CCA check value to 1600 (~10ms CCA
check), the package loss dropped to 1-2%.
I will do some testing and let you guys know whether i can somehow fix it.
Christian
--
Dipl. Inform. Christian Haas
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie
TM Prof. Dr. Zitterbart
Raum 102, Geb. 20.50
Engesserstraße 2 Rechts
76128 Karlsruhe
Germany
Tel.: +49 721 608-48673
Email:h...@tm.uka.de
Jabber-ID: h...@tm.uka.de
___
Tinyos-help mailing list
Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB, Motes
Hi Christian,
Please post the code you are using for the test if you can.
Best,
Miklos
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Christian Haas wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 04:48 PM, Miklos Maroti wrote:
>> Hi Horst,
>>
>> Are you using the latest version from tinyos-main? You can change the
>> listen length in RF230RadioP.nc (chips/rf230) with this function:
>>
>> command uint16_t LowPowerListeningConfig.getListenLength() { return 5; }
>>
>> For us LPL on IRIS works perfectly fine.
>
> Hi all,
>
> perfectly fine is not the thing i see when using Iris and LPL .)
>
> Even in a simple scenario with 1 sender and 1 host you will see a lot of
> packages lost(>30% for me).
>
> We had the same thing on Micaz nodes using the the default values for
> the CCA check. When increasing the CCA check value to 1600 (~10ms CCA
> check), the package loss dropped to 1-2%.
>
> I will do some testing and let you guys know whether i can somehow fix it.
>
> Christian
>
> --
> Dipl. Inform. Christian Haas
> Karlsruher Institut für Technologie
> TM Prof. Dr. Zitterbart
> Raum 102, Geb. 20.50
> Engesserstraße 2 Rechts
> 76128 Karlsruhe
> Germany
>
> Tel.: +49 721 608-48673
> Email:h...@tm.uka.de
> Jabber-ID: h...@tm.uka.de
>
>
>
___
Tinyos-help mailing list
Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB, Motes
Did you set the local wakup interval as well to the same value? Miklos
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Christian Haas wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 02:05 PM, Miklos Maroti wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> Please post the code you are using for the test if you can.
>
> The code is pretty simple:
>
>
> #ifdef LOW_POWER_LISTENING
> call LowPowerListening.setRemoteWakeupInterval(&pkt, SEND_INTERVAL);
> #endif
>
> if (call CSend.send(1, &pkt, PAYLOAD_SIZE) == SUCCESS)
> {
>
> }
>
>
>
> You can see the results in the attached plots of the energy consumption
> of the iris nodes. Sleep interval and RemoteWakeupInterval set to 1000.
>
> For tinyos2.1.0: The cca check(red) fails, no pkt transmitted.
>
> For the newer versions you can see that the remotewakeupinterval and
> therefor the duration the msg is sent is wrong. That leads to pkt loss
> even if the cca check would work correctly.
>
>
> Regards,
> Christian
>
> --
> Dipl. Inform. Christian Haas
> Karlsruher Institut für Technologie
> TM Prof. Dr. Zitterbart
> Raum 102, Geb. 20.50
> Engesserstraße 2 Rechts
> 76128 Karlsruhe
> Germany
>
> Tel.: +49 721 608-48673
> Email:h...@tm.uka.de
> Jabber-ID: h...@tm.uka.de
>
>
>
___
Tinyos-help mailing list
Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] Differences between LPL on Iris and TelosB, Motes
Hi all,
I've played arround with the parameters and now it works as expected.
With the newest tinyos trunk (rev 4941). I have set
LowPowerListeningConfig.getListenLength() to 38ms instead of 5ms (this
corresponds the length of 1600 cca checks on telosb motes) and
set LocalWakeupInterval to 500
and RemoteWakeupinterval to 550.
In the TestLpl app I don't understand these lines of Code.
if (sendInterval >= 0)
call LowPowerListening.setRemoteWakeupInterval(&packet,
sendInterval);
which value has RemoteWakeupInterval if sendInterval is lesser than 0 ?
Am 17.06.2011 16:26, schrieb Miklos Maroti:
> Did you set the local wakup interval as well to the same value? Miklos
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Christian Haas wrote:
>> On 06/16/2011 02:05 PM, Miklos Maroti wrote:
>>> Hi Christian,
>>>
>>> Please post the code you are using for the test if you can.
>> The code is pretty simple:
>>
>>
>> #ifdef LOW_POWER_LISTENING
>> call LowPowerListening.setRemoteWakeupInterval(&pkt, SEND_INTERVAL);
>> #endif
>>
>> if (call CSend.send(1,&pkt, PAYLOAD_SIZE) == SUCCESS)
>> {
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> You can see the results in the attached plots of the energy consumption
>> of the iris nodes. Sleep interval and RemoteWakeupInterval set to 1000.
>>
>> For tinyos2.1.0: The cca check(red) fails, no pkt transmitted.
>>
>> For the newer versions you can see that the remotewakeupinterval and
>> therefor the duration the msg is sent is wrong. That leads to pkt loss
>> even if the cca check would work correctly.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> Dipl. Inform. Christian Haas
>> Karlsruher Institut für Technologie
>> TM Prof. Dr. Zitterbart
>> Raum 102, Geb. 20.50
>> Engesserstraße 2 Rechts
>> 76128 Karlsruhe
>> Germany
>>
>> Tel.: +49 721 608-48673
>> Email:h...@tm.uka.de
>> Jabber-ID: h...@tm.uka.de
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> Tinyos-help mailing list
> Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
___
Tinyos-help mailing list
Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
