Dear Sir,
Please find the file at the following link. The file contains PRR vs.
LPL_wakeup_interval observations. Please skim through the details provided
below each of the tables in the file.
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~doddaven/lpl.pdf
Sincerely,
Manjunath D
################################################################################################################
***************************************************************************************************************
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Philip Levis wrote:
> I don't think this quite answers my question: it was whether, on using
> setLocalWakeupInterval(), you see a change in PRR on simple AM transmissions.
> I.e., is this a general link layer issue, or an interaction between the link
> layer and CTP? My guess is that it is the former, but evidence would help.
>
> Phil
>
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Manjunath Doddavenkatappa wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> The problem and its cause can be summarized as follows.
>>
>> In the case of CTP, I guess it is required to set LPL variables (local and
>> remote sleep intervals) from the Makefile. Otherwise, I guess no preamble is
>> sent before transmitting routing beacons thus resulting in unexpected
>> behavior. Instead of defining LPL variables in the Makefile, I was using
>> LowPowerListeniing interface to set LPL variables from the application. The
>> interface allows to set local sleep interval, and remote wake-up interval
>> for only the data packets that I send from the application and this does not
>> have any effect on beacon transmission.
>>
>> As you suggested, I tested without CTP, program works without any problems
>> in both the cases of on setting LPL variables from the Makefile and
>> application. As no routing beacons are involved, behavior is independent of
>> the location from where I set LPL variables.
>>
>> Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
>>
>> Further, what is the reason for not having the LPL to use default preamble
>> length for outgoing packets based on local sleep interval (that is set using
>> the command setLocalWakeupInterval()). I understand that the command
>> setRemoteWakeupInterval allows to handle different sleep intervals. But is
>> is typical to have different schedules for different nodes ? and moreover,
>> this requires every forwarder to know the sleep interval of its next hop.
>>
>> Thanking you,
>> D. Manjunath
>>
>> ################################################################################################################
>> ***************************************************************************************************************
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Philip Levis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2010, at 3:40 AM, Manjunath Doddavenkatappa wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Dr. Gnawali,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to get back to you so late, we had a paper deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Everything works fine if I set LPL variables from the Makefile as in
>>>> TestNetworkLpl. Problems arise only on trying to set LPL variables from
>>>> the program using "setLocalWakeupInterval()". Just to verify in the later
>>>> case, I retrived sleep interval value using "getLocalWakeupInterval()",
>>>> the returned value is consistent with what I set it to.
>>>>
>>>> Manjunath D
>>>
>>> Here's a simpler question: outside of CTP, is there a relationship between
>>> the LPL interval and a link's packet reception ratio? I.e., if you send
>>> unicast LPL messages to a destination, do you see that increasing the LPL
>>> interval decreases the PRR? Note that CTP is often going to be using
>>> borderline links that are near the SNR/PRR threshold.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tinyos-help mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
