Hi All, Thanks Om and Razvan for the LPL papers, would go through them ...
Chetan, i have tried multiple permutations and combinations in my network with maximum number of nodes being 30. Single-Hop - RadioCountToLeds(original and also with modifications specified in the previous mail) + BaseStation Multi-Hop - MultiHopOscilloscope(CTP - 4bitle,le and LQI) SingleHop + MultiHop - RadioCountToLeds + MultiHopOscilloscope(modified to also receive and forward broadcast messages from RadioCountToLeds to the Base Station). LQI worked better in this scenario than CTP while it should be otherwise according to the mailing lists. As I described in the previous mail, little changes in the topology/codes have significant impact on packet-loss behaviour. For example I added another snoop interface in MultiHopOscilloscope to receive and forward RadioCountToLeds messages and this leads to a big increase in packet-loss, probably the forwarding/snooping engine at the lower level(queues) etc interferes with the snooping(receive and forward of RadioCountToLeds messages) at the application level. I am trying to use the debugging information to pinpoint the issues. I think if other people have done similar tests, we should share the results to understand whether its our network/topology-specific problems or its a general problem faced by everyone. So, if you can tell me abt your testbed and results, wud b helpful. If you want more information about my testbeds, can send you the details. Best Regards, Gaurav On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Razvan Musaloiu-E. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Omprakash Gnawali wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Gaurav Chandwani < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Omprakash, > >> > >> > >> Are you suggesting me to put LPL in the RadioCountToLeds code and not > use Radio On/Off ? > >> Does LPL save more battery than switching off the radio while its not > transmitting ? > >> can you give some statistics if available. > >> I was of the impression that with LPL, there is more probability of > loosing packets, which is > >> more important to me ..I read abt CTP + LPL which probably is totally > another thing .. > >> but I have not read much LPL yet, would go thru it .. > >> Meanwhile, can you just point out a bit more clearly in which ways it > could > >> help :) > > > > http://www.polastre.com/papers/sensys04-bmac.pdf > > B-MAC was created for CC1000. A paper that discuss in more detail the > CC2420 implementation of LPL is this one: > http://sing.stanford.edu/pubs/sing-08-00.pdf > > -- > Razvan ME > _______________________________________________ > Tinyos-help mailing list > Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu > https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe. - Anatole France
_______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
