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 Tinyos-help@millennium.berkeley.edu https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help