Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Hi, OK, now I see the poor ack performance. I'll have a look. Janos On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: The application compiles correctly with cc2420x stack, but after it runs for a while on nodes, nodes die and the application collapses. Before its collapse, for the same sender and receiver, very few acks are received using cc2420x stack (i.e., 10%) but most acks (i.e., 90%) are received with cc2420 stack. I added Packet.clear() and the result does not change. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Hi, What do you mean by The application crashes if it is using the cc2420x stack? Does it compile? Does it run on a mote, but no acks are received? Do you call Packet.clear() before reusing a message_t buffer? The proper way of using non-default metadata settings (acks, tx power, etc.) in the rfxlink stack is: - calling Packet.clear() on the reused buffer - filling in the payload - setting parameters in the metadata (acks, tx power, etc.) - calling AMSend.send() 1) use cc2420x stack: it's necessary to get all functionality of CTP, i.e., PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata and possibly others, to work.under the new stack You can live without LinkPacketMetadata: modify CtpP such that it wires DummyActiveMessageP instead of CC2420ActiveMessageC if the cc2420x stack is used. 2) use default cc2420 stack: fix its timestamping (both packet timestamping and packet-level time sync) by porting the timestamping from cc2420x to cc2420 If you have any suggestion on which venue to go and how to implement it, please let me know. Thanks, again. There's a TEP on the cc2420 stack, there's the cc2420 data sheet, and there's the source code. You might get some answers from the three or four people familiar with that code from the mailing list as well. Janos -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
A quick fix would be to use the tinyos-main tree as of March 31, 2011
(use svn with the -r {2011-03-31} command line option). The SVN head
appears to be in a bit of flux now.
Janos
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote:
The application compiles correctly with cc2420x stack, but after it runs for
a while on nodes, nodes die and the application collapses. Before its
collapse, for the same sender and receiver, very few acks are received using
cc2420x stack (i.e., 10%) but most acks (i.e., 90%) are received with
cc2420 stack.
I added Packet.clear() and the result does not change.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu
wrote:
Hi,
What do you mean by The application crashes if it is using the
cc2420x stack? Does it compile? Does it run on a mote, but no acks
are received?
Do you call Packet.clear() before reusing a message_t buffer? The
proper way of using non-default metadata settings (acks, tx power,
etc.) in the rfxlink stack is:
- calling Packet.clear() on the reused buffer
- filling in the payload
- setting parameters in the metadata (acks, tx power, etc.)
- calling AMSend.send()
1) use cc2420x stack: it's necessary to get all functionality of CTP,
i.e., PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata and possibly others,
to work.under the new stack
You can live without LinkPacketMetadata: modify CtpP such that it
wires DummyActiveMessageP instead of CC2420ActiveMessageC if the
cc2420x stack is used.
2) use default cc2420 stack: fix its timestamping (both packet
timestamping
and packet-level time sync) by porting the timestamping from cc2420x to
cc2420
If you have any suggestion on which venue to go and how to implement it,
please let me know. Thanks, again.
There's a TEP on the cc2420 stack, there's the cc2420 data sheet, and
there's the source code. You might get some answers from the three or
four people familiar with that code from the mailing list as well.
Janos
--
-Xiaohui Liu
___
Tinyos-help mailing list
Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
I have checked in a fix for the cc2420x acknowledgement loss issue. Please update to the svn head from google code. I have tested it with apps/test/cc2420/TestAck, compiled for the telosb cc2420x target. Let me know if it works for you, and thanks for reporting this issue. Janos On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: The application compiles correctly with cc2420x stack, but after it runs for a while on nodes, nodes die and the application collapses. Before its collapse, for the same sender and receiver, very few acks are received using cc2420x stack (i.e., 10%) but most acks (i.e., 90%) are received with cc2420 stack. I added Packet.clear() and the result does not change. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Hi, What do you mean by The application crashes if it is using the cc2420x stack? Does it compile? Does it run on a mote, but no acks are received? Do you call Packet.clear() before reusing a message_t buffer? The proper way of using non-default metadata settings (acks, tx power, etc.) in the rfxlink stack is: - calling Packet.clear() on the reused buffer - filling in the payload - setting parameters in the metadata (acks, tx power, etc.) - calling AMSend.send() 1) use cc2420x stack: it's necessary to get all functionality of CTP, i.e., PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata and possibly others, to work.under the new stack You can live without LinkPacketMetadata: modify CtpP such that it wires DummyActiveMessageP instead of CC2420ActiveMessageC if the cc2420x stack is used. 2) use default cc2420 stack: fix its timestamping (both packet timestamping and packet-level time sync) by porting the timestamping from cc2420x to cc2420 If you have any suggestion on which venue to go and how to implement it, please let me know. Thanks, again. There's a TEP on the cc2420 stack, there's the cc2420 data sheet, and there's the source code. You might get some answers from the three or four people familiar with that code from the mailing list as well. Janos -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Hi Janos, Thank you. I changed the default cc2420 stack so that the receiver directly places the timestamp into its meta data in SFD interrupt handler, instead of maintaining a seperate timestamp queue as in the current cc2420 stack, just like transmission timestamping at the sender side. So far, it works great for me. I'm working for some deadline. I'll check if the fix works after that and get back to you. -Xiaohui On , Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: I have checked in a fix for the cc2420x acknowledgement loss issue. Please update to the svn head from google code. I have tested it with apps/test/cc2420/TestAck, compiled for the telosb cc2420x target. Let me know if it works for you, and thanks for reporting this issue. Janos On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: The application compiles correctly with cc2420x stack, but after it runs for a while on nodes, nodes die and the application collapses. Before its collapse, for the same sender and receiver, very few acks are received using cc2420x stack (ie, 90%) are received with cc2420 stack. I added Packet.clear() and the result does not change. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Hi, What do you mean by The application crashes if it is using the cc2420x stack? Does it compile? Does it run on a mote, but no acks are received? Do you call Packet.clear() before reusing a message_t buffer? The proper way of using non-default metadata settings (acks, tx power, etc.) in the rfxlink stack is: - calling Packet.clear() on the reused buffer - filling in the payload - setting parameters in the metadata (acks, tx power, etc.) - calling AMSend.send() 1) use cc2420x stack: it's necessary to get all functionality of CTP, ie, PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata and possibly others, to work.under the new stack You can live without LinkPacketMetadata: modify CtpP such that it wires DummyActiveMessageP instead of CC2420ActiveMessageC if the cc2420x stack is used. 2) use default cc2420 stack: fix its timestamping (both packet timestamping and packet-level time sync) by porting the timestamping from cc2420x to cc2420 If you have any suggestion on which venue to go and how to implement it, please let me know. Thanks, again. There's a TEP on the cc2420 stack, there's the cc2420 data sheet, and there's the source code. You might get some answers from the three or four people familiar with that code from the mailing list as well. Janos -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Hi, Which components provide PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata interface in cc2420x stack? If I use AMSenderC and CC2420ActiveMessageC as in CTP, it does now compile as stated in the previous email. On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks. What about packet-level time sync as stated in TEP133http://www.tinyos.net/tinyos-2.x/doc/html/tep133.html? Is there any known issue of such time sync in the default cc2420 stack? I'm using it with CTP, but sometimes it seems even TimeSyncPacket.isValid() returns true, the timestamp seems to be invalid (this is detected by measurements such as time interval close to 2 ^ 32 ms). Because packet-level time sync is based on packet timestamping, so it should have issues as well, am I right? The reason why I don't use cc2420x stack with CTP yet is that it constantly prompts compilation error: *$/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:46: redefinition of `nx_struct timesync_footer_t'* *$/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:46: warning: tag timesync_footer_t shadows enclosing struct/union/enum* *$/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:49: conflicting types for `timesync_footer_t'* *$/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/lib/rfxlink/layers/TimeSyncMessageLayer.h:58: previous declaration of `timesync_footer_t'* What changes are necessary to use packet-level time sync compatibly with CTP? Thanks very much. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.eduwrote: Timestamping has known issues in the default cc2420 stack (telosb, micaz, etc.) under heavy load. Try using the cc2420x stack. Compile with make telosb cc2420x. You'll need the latest sources from google code. Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: I'm using the default one, I'm not sure how to use cc2420x. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Is this the default cc2420 stack, or do you use cc2420x? Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone please give me some hint on what may be the cause? I'm stuck here. I really appreciate your assistance. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Your observation is correct. The default cc2420 stack does have issues with timestamping (under heavy load, in particular). The cc2420x stack should work, though. Based on the errors you're getting, you're using the default stack (tos/chips/cc2420). Make sure that you wire either against ActiveMessageC, TimeSyncMessageC, CC2420XTimeSyncMessageC or CC2420XActiveMessageC. Do _not_ wire CC2420ActiveMessageC. Ctp should work: tests/TestNetwork compiles with make telosb cc2420x. Those test applications that directly wire CC2420ActiveMessageC obviously exploit some features that are specific to the default cc2420 stack, and will not work without modifications with the cc2420x stack. Janos On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks. What about packet-level time sync as stated in TEP133? Is there any known issue of such time sync in the default cc2420 stack? I'm using it with CTP, but sometimes it seems even TimeSyncPacket.isValid() returns true, the timestamp seems to be invalid (this is detected by measurements such as time interval close to 2 ^ 32 ms). Because packet-level time sync is based on packet timestamping, so it should have issues as well, am I right? The reason why I don't use cc2420x stack with CTP yet is that it constantly prompts compilation error: $/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:46: redefinition of `nx_struct timesync_footer_t' $/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:46: warning: tag timesync_footer_t shadows enclosing struct/union/enum $/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:49: conflicting types for `timesync_footer_t' $/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/lib/rfxlink/layers/TimeSyncMessageLayer.h:58: previous declaration of `timesync_footer_t' What changes are necessary to use packet-level time sync compatibly with CTP? Thanks very much. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Timestamping has known issues in the default cc2420 stack (telosb, micaz, etc.) under heavy load. Try using the cc2420x stack. Compile with make telosb cc2420x. You'll need the latest sources from google code. Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: I'm using the default one, I'm not sure how to use cc2420x. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Is this the default cc2420 stack, or do you use cc2420x? Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone please give me some hint on what may be the cause? I'm stuck here. I really appreciate your assistance. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Hi, I add PacketAcknowledgements for unicast packets in the demo applicationhttp://code.google.com/p/tinyos-main/source/browse/trunk/apps/tests/rfxlink/TestPacketTimeSync/?r=5544 and wire it to ActiveMessageC. The application crashes if it is using the * cc2420x* stack. However, it works fine if the default *cc2420* stack is used. Can you help me understand what may be going wrong here? Ultimately, I want to make packet-level time sync work with CTP to measure the time it takes for a packet to traverse each link. This is done by first timestamping a packet at the sender and then piggybacking the timestamp in the packet to the receiver. There are two options: 1) use cc2420x stack: it's necessary to get all functionality of CTP, i.e., PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata and possibly others, to work.under the new stack 2) use default cc2420 stack: fix its timestamping (both packet timestamping and packet-level time sync) by porting the timestamping from cc2420x to cc2420 If you have any suggestion on which venue to go and how to implement it, please let me know. Thanks, again. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.eduwrote: Hi, PacketAcknowledgements is provided by ActiveMessageC. No component provides LinkPacketMetadata in the cc2420x (rfxlink) stack. It's not particularly complicated to implement that functionality, though. Janos On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Which components provide PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata interface in cc2420x stack? If I use AMSenderC and CC2420ActiveMessageC as in CTP, it does now compile as stated in the previous email. On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks. What about packet-level time sync as stated in TEP133? Is there any known issue of such time sync in the default cc2420 stack? I'm using it with CTP, but sometimes it seems even TimeSyncPacket.isValid() returns true, the timestamp seems to be invalid (this is detected by measurements such as time interval close to 2 ^ 32 ms). Because packet-level time sync is based on packet timestamping, so it should have issues as well, am I right? The reason why I don't use cc2420x stack with CTP yet is that it constantly prompts compilation error: $/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:46: redefinition of `nx_struct timesync_footer_t' $/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:46: warning: tag timesync_footer_t shadows enclosing struct/union/enum $/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:49: conflicting types for `timesync_footer_t' $/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/lib/rfxlink/layers/TimeSyncMessageLayer.h:58: previous declaration of `timesync_footer_t' What changes are necessary to use packet-level time sync compatibly with CTP? Thanks very much. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Timestamping has known issues in the default cc2420 stack (telosb, micaz, etc.) under heavy load. Try using the cc2420x stack. Compile with make telosb cc2420x. You'll need the latest sources from google code. Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: I'm using the default one, I'm not sure how to use cc2420x. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Is this the default cc2420 stack, or do you use cc2420x? Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone please give me some hint on what may be the cause? I'm stuck here. I really appreciate your assistance. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Hi, What do you mean by The application crashes if it is using the cc2420x stack? Does it compile? Does it run on a mote, but no acks are received? Do you call Packet.clear() before reusing a message_t buffer? The proper way of using non-default metadata settings (acks, tx power, etc.) in the rfxlink stack is: - calling Packet.clear() on the reused buffer - filling in the payload - setting parameters in the metadata (acks, tx power, etc.) - calling AMSend.send() 1) use cc2420x stack: it's necessary to get all functionality of CTP, i.e., PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata and possibly others, to work.under the new stack You can live without LinkPacketMetadata: modify CtpP such that it wires DummyActiveMessageP instead of CC2420ActiveMessageC if the cc2420x stack is used. 2) use default cc2420 stack: fix its timestamping (both packet timestamping and packet-level time sync) by porting the timestamping from cc2420x to cc2420 If you have any suggestion on which venue to go and how to implement it, please let me know. Thanks, again. There's a TEP on the cc2420 stack, there's the cc2420 data sheet, and there's the source code. You might get some answers from the three or four people familiar with that code from the mailing list as well. Janos ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
The application compiles correctly with cc2420x stack, but after it runs for a while on nodes, nodes die and the application collapses. Before its collapse, for the same sender and receiver, very few acks are received using cc2420x stack (i.e., 10%) but most acks (i.e., 90%) are received with cc2420 stack. I added Packet.clear() and the result does not change. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.eduwrote: Hi, What do you mean by The application crashes if it is using the cc2420x stack? Does it compile? Does it run on a mote, but no acks are received? Do you call Packet.clear() before reusing a message_t buffer? The proper way of using non-default metadata settings (acks, tx power, etc.) in the rfxlink stack is: - calling Packet.clear() on the reused buffer - filling in the payload - setting parameters in the metadata (acks, tx power, etc.) - calling AMSend.send() 1) use cc2420x stack: it's necessary to get all functionality of CTP, i.e., PacketAcknowledgements and LinkPacketMetadata and possibly others, to work.under the new stack You can live without LinkPacketMetadata: modify CtpP such that it wires DummyActiveMessageP instead of CC2420ActiveMessageC if the cc2420x stack is used. 2) use default cc2420 stack: fix its timestamping (both packet timestamping and packet-level time sync) by porting the timestamping from cc2420x to cc2420 If you have any suggestion on which venue to go and how to implement it, please let me know. Thanks, again. There's a TEP on the cc2420 stack, there's the cc2420 data sheet, and there's the source code. You might get some answers from the three or four people familiar with that code from the mailing list as well. Janos -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Thanks. What about packet-level time sync as stated in TEP133http://www.tinyos.net/tinyos-2.x/doc/html/tep133.html? Is there any known issue of such time sync in the default cc2420 stack? I'm using it with CTP, but sometimes it seems even TimeSyncPacket.isValid() returns true, the timestamp seems to be invalid (this is detected by measurements such as time interval close to 2 ^ 32 ms). Because packet-level time sync is based on packet timestamping, so it should have issues as well, am I right? The reason why I don't use cc2420x stack with CTP yet is that it constantly prompts compilation error: *$/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:46: redefinition of `nx_struct timesync_footer_t'* *$/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:46: warning: tag timesync_footer_t shadows enclosing struct/union/enum* *$/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/chips/cc2420/CC2420TimeSyncMessage.h:49: conflicting types for `timesync_footer_t'* *$/tinyos-2.1.x/tos/lib/rfxlink/layers/TimeSyncMessageLayer.h:58: previous declaration of `timesync_footer_t'* What changes are necessary to use packet-level time sync compatibly with CTP? Thanks very much. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.eduwrote: Timestamping has known issues in the default cc2420 stack (telosb, micaz, etc.) under heavy load. Try using the cc2420x stack. Compile with make telosb cc2420x. You'll need the latest sources from google code. Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: I'm using the default one, I'm not sure how to use cc2420x. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Is this the default cc2420 stack, or do you use cc2420x? Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone please give me some hint on what may be the cause? I'm stuck here. I really appreciate your assistance. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Can anyone please give me some hint on what may be the cause? I'm stuck here. I really appreciate your assistance. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Is this the default cc2420 stack, or do you use cc2420x? Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone please give me some hint on what may be the cause? I'm stuck here. I really appreciate your assistance. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ 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] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
I'm using the default one, I'm not sure how to use cc2420x. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.eduwrote: Is this the default cc2420 stack, or do you use cc2420x? Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone please give me some hint on what may be the cause? I'm stuck here. I really appreciate your assistance. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Timestamping has known issues in the default cc2420 stack (telosb, micaz, etc.) under heavy load. Try using the cc2420x stack. Compile with make telosb cc2420x. You'll need the latest sources from google code. Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: I'm using the default one, I'm not sure how to use cc2420x. On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Janos Sallai sal...@isis.vanderbilt.edu wrote: Is this the default cc2420 stack, or do you use cc2420x? Janos On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone please give me some hint on what may be the cause? I'm stuck here. I really appreciate your assistance. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
[Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
Re: [Tinyos-help] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ 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] PacketTimeStamp.isValid() mostly returns FALSE
Telosb. On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Hamid Rafiei hamid.raf...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, What is the platform you are using? Regards, Hamid Rafiei Karkvandi On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Xiaohui Liu whu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'm using PacketTimeStamp interface to timestamp packet transmission and reception, but I find isValid() returns FALSE more than 90% of the time. Can anyone help me understand what may go wrong? I'm timestamping in sendDone() and receive() event only and sending 1 packet per second. Any help is appreciated. -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help -- -Xiaohui Liu ___ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
