batctl bw performance
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Hello Gabriel,
first of all thank you very much for testing the bw meter :-) answers follow inline.
Quoted 5 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi Antonio,
As you suggested, I've tested the bandwidth meter with batman-adv-devel 38a1b72. I've installed it on two TP-Link WDR-3500 routers.
oky. However, since the bw_meter has not been merged yet, its branch changes from time to time because it gets rebased on top of the very latest development code. Therefore, when you decide to update your testbed, I'd suggest you to look
at: http://git.open-mesh.org/batman-adv.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ordex/bw_meter
and pick the commit ID of the last patch at the top.
If you have problems in doing this, please ask.
Quoted 9 lines
Running normal iperf inside the routers, and without unloading any kernel module, I get 60 Mbps using UDP, 80 Mbps using TCP (I don't understand why TCP works better), and about 4 Mbps with batctl bw -t 10000. Any ideas? By the way, the batctl ping between routers doesn't work, I get time-out. Besides, there's another strange behaviour, when I try to pass traffic from a PC client connected to one router, to the other router using iperf, if I use UDP values of about 100 Mbps, the router that receives the traffic and redirects it, reboots. Thanks.
Ok..well, first of all I'd rather check what is wrong in the mesh. If batctl ping does not work, then it means that there is something else which is not working/configured properly.
For this reason I'll first suggest you to update to this commit id: d672369 . Then, does "batctl o" properly shows the other node with a "reasonable TQ"?
By the way, your iperf tests have been done on top of batman-adv? or directly on the wifi interface?
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Hi Antonio,
Quoted 4 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
first of all thank you very much for testing the bw meter :-) answers follow inline.
You're welcome, I think it's an interesting idea.
Quoted 8 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Quoted 5 lines
Hi Antonio,
As you suggested, I've tested the bandwidth meter with batman-adv-devel 38a1b72. I've installed it on two TP-Link WDR-3500 routers.
Quoted 7 lines
oky. However, since the
bw_meterhas not been merged yet, its branch changes from time to time because it gets rebased on top of the very latest development code. Therefore, when you decide to update your testbed, I'd suggest you to look
at: http://git.open-mesh.org/batman-adv.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ordex/bw_meter
and pick the commit ID of the last patch at the top.If you have problems in doing this, please ask.
I don't understand what commit ids should I use. For example, how could I find the ones you suggested me before for batman (38a1b72b6) and for batctl (eebba0bfb). Because on the top of the git I see for example the commit d672369c3476f002662fa7e83b76ee56a93a76db for "batman-adv: set maximum number of BW session", which seems in a different format, right?
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 10 lines
Running normal iperf inside the routers, and without unloading any kernel module, I get 60 Mbps using UDP, 80 Mbps using TCP (I don't understand why TCP works better), and about 4 Mbps with batctl bw -t 10000. Any ideas? By the way, the batctl ping between routers doesn't work, I get time-out. Besides, there's another strange behaviour, when I try to pass traffic from a PC client connected to one router, to the other router using iperf, if I use UDP values of about 100 Mbps, the router that receives the traffic and redirects it, reboots. Thanks.
Quoted 3 lines
Ok..well, first of all I'd rather check what is wrong in the mesh. If batctl ping does not work, then it means that there is something else which is not working/configured properly.
Yes, it's weird, specially because there's connectivity between routers thanks to batman-adv.
Quoted 3 lines
For this reason I'll first suggest you to update to this commit id: d672369 . Then, does "batctl o" properly shows the other node with a "reasonable TQ"?
So, in menuconfig I should select that id for batman-adv-devel right? I wanted to see that commit on the git page using the search field but I couldn't. By the way, how to know which batctl version use with each batman-adv-devel commit? Sorry if all these questions are too basic, but I've tried to compile with this d672369 version and I got some errors, so I'd like to understand if it was related to these things.
Quoted 7 lines
By the way, your iperf tests have been done on top of batman-adv? or directly on the wifi interface?
Cheers,
I got the results mentioned using interfaces managed by batman-adv.
Regards
Gabriel
Quoted 25 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi Antonio,
Quoted 4 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
first of all thank you very much for testing the bw meter :-) answers follow inline.
You're welcome, I think it's an interesting idea.
Quoted 14 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Quoted 5 lines
Hi Antonio,
As you suggested, I've tested the bandwidth meter with batman-adv-devel 38a1b72. I've installed it on two TP-Link WDR-3500 routers.
oky. However, since the
bw_meterhas not been merged yet, its branch changes from time to time because it gets rebased on top of the very latest development code. Therefore, when you decide to update your testbed, I'd suggest you to look
at: http://git.open-mesh.org/batman-adv.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ordex/bw_meter
and pick the commit ID of the last patch at the top.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
If you have problems in doing this, please ask.
I don't understand what commit ids should I use. For example, how could I find the ones you suggested me before for batman (
38a1b72b6) and for batctl (eebba0bfb). Because on the top of the git I see for example the commitd672369c3476f002662fa7e83b76ee56a93a76dbfor "batman-adv: set maximum number of BW session", which seems in a different format, right?
Right. Becuase it changes everytime the tree is rebased. Now you won't fin that commit ID anymore. Now you should use the _new_ commit ID of:
"batman-adv: set maximum number of BW session"
(it is not important to change everytime it changes on the git, but in case of troubles, it may be a good idea to use the current one to see if the problems are still there).
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Running normal iperf inside the routers, and without unloading any kernel module, I get 60 Mbps using UDP, 80 Mbps using TCP (I don't understand why TCP works better), and about 4 Mbps with batctl bw -t 10000. Any ideas? By the way, the batctl ping between routers doesn't work, I get time-out. Besides, there's another strange behaviour, when I try to pass traffic from a PC client connected to one router, to the other router using iperf, if I use UDP values of about 100 Mbps, the router that receives the traffic and redirects it, reboots. Thanks.
Quoted 3 lines
Ok..well, first of all I'd rather check what is wrong in the mesh. If batctl ping does not work, then it means that there is something else which is not working/configured properly.
Yes, it's weird, specially because there's connectivity between routers thanks to batman-adv.
Quoted 3 lines
For this reason I'll first suggest you to update to this commit id: d672369 . Then, does "batctl o" properly shows the other node with a "reasonable TQ"?
Quoted 6 lines
So, in menuconfig I should select that id for batman-adv-devel right? I wanted to see that commit on the git page using the search field but I couldn't. By the way, how to know which batctl version use with each batman-adv-devel commit? Sorry if all these questions are too basic, but I've tried to compile with this d672369 version and I got some errors, so I'd like to understand if it was related to these things.
no problems. These are not basic questions :) Actually the user usually do not enter these dev details and therefore it is normal to find issues.
For batctl, you should use the last commit ID in this branch (ordex/bw_meter)
http://git.open-mesh.org/batctl.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ordex/bw_meter
Quoted 10 lines
Quoted 8 lines
By the way, your iperf tests have been done on top of batman-adv? or directly on the wifi interface?
Cheers,
I got the results mentioned using interfaces managed by batman-adv.
mh...maybe the pign is not working because of some changes brought by the bw_meter in the icmp packets. I'll check and I'll let you know.
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Quoted 20 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 6 lines · Gabriel Tolón
So, in menuconfig I should select that id for batman-adv-devel right? I wanted to see that commit on the git page using the search field but I couldn't. By the way, how to know which batctl version use with each batman-adv-devel commit? Sorry if all these questions are too basic, but I've tried to compile with this d672369 version and I got some errors, so I'd like to understand if it was related to these things.
no problems. These are not basic questions :) Actually the user usually do not enter these dev details and therefore it is normal to find issues.
For batctl, you should use the last commit ID in this branch (ordex/bw_meter)
http://git.open-mesh.org/batctl.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ordex/bw_meterQuoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
By the way, your iperf tests have been done on top of batman-adv? or directly on the wifi interface?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Cheers,
I got the results mentioned using interfaces managed by batman-adv.
mh...maybe the pign is not working because of some changes brought by the
bw_meterin the icmp packets. I'll check and I'll let you know.
I juested the current ordex/bw_meter branches (batctl and batman-adv) and the ping works fine.
Please, let me know your results.
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Hi,
Now I'm with batman-adv 5ffa8f201d085764365d202ace14675032cc3a74, batctl 6d3d4d1f80dca31b6400f3794772016cdbc19a73, and openwrt r36826.
The results are almost the same, no batctl pings, and batctl bw much slower than iperfs. wdr3500 have 2 radios, these are the routes:
Quoted 37 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 20 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 6 lines · Gabriel Tolón
So, in menuconfig I should select that id for batman-adv-devel right? I wanted to see that commit on the git page using the search field but I couldn't. By the way, how to know which batctl version use with each batman-adv-devel commit? Sorry if all these questions are too basic, but I've tried to compile with this d672369 version and I got some errors, so I'd like to understand if it was related to these things.
no problems. These are not basic questions :) Actually the user usually do not enter these dev details and therefore it is normal to find issues.
For batctl, you should use the last commit ID in this branch (ordex/bw_meter)
http://git.open-mesh.org/batctl.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ordex/bw_meterQuoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
By the way, your iperf tests have been done on top of batman-adv? or directly on the wifi interface?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Cheers,
I got the results mentioned using interfaces managed by batman-adv.
mh...maybe the pign is not working because of some changes brought by the
bw_meterin the icmp packets. I'll check and I'll let you know.I juested the current ordex/bw_meter branches (batctl and batman-adv) and the ping works fine.
Please, let me know your results.
Cheers,
Sorry, I sent the mail incomplete,
So these are the routes:
Equipo1:
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:42 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...
E3-5GHz 0.680s (251) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]:
E3-5GHz (251)
E3-2GHz 0.430s (255) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]:
E3-5GHz (255) E3-2GHz (252)Equipo3:
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:d6 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...
E1-2GHz 0.310s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]:
E1-5GHz (255) E1-2GHz (255)
E1-5GHz 0.550s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]:
E1-5GHz (255)The results of batctl pings:
Equipo1:
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl ping E3-2GHz
PING E3-2GHz (66:70:02:4e:d9:d6) 20(48) bytes of data Reply from host E3-2GHz timed out
Reply from host E3-2GHz timed out
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl ping E3-5GHz
PING E3-5GHz (66:70:02:4e:d9:d7) 20(48) bytes of data Reply from host E3-5GHz timed out
Reply from host E3-5GHz timed out
Equipo3:
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl ping E1-2GHz
PING E1-2GHz (66:70:02:4e:d9:42) 20(48) bytes of data Reply from host E1-2GHz timed out
Reply from host E1-2GHz timed out
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl ping E1-5GHz
PING E1-5GHz (66:70:02:4e:d9:43) 20(48) bytes of data Reply from host E1-5GHz timed out
Reply from host E1-5GHz timed out
If there is more info I could send you just tell me.
Regards
Gabriel
Quoted 56 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi,
Now I'm with batman-adv
5ffa8f201d085764365d202ace14675032cc3a74, batctl6d3d4d1f80dca31b6400f3794772016cdbc19a73, and openwrt r36826.The results are almost the same, no batctl pings, and batctl bw much slower than iperfs. wdr3500 have 2 radios, these are the routes:
Quoted 43 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 24 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 7 lines · Gabriel Tolón
So, in menuconfig I should select that id for batman-adv-devel right? I wanted to see that commit on the git page using the search field but I couldn't. By the way, how to know which batctl version use with each batman-adv-devel commit? Sorry if all these questions are too basic, but
I've tried to compile with this d672369 version and I got some errors, so I'd like to understand if it was related to these things.no problems. These are not basic questions :) Actually the user usually do not
enter these dev details and therefore it is normal to find issues.For batctl, you should use the last commit ID in this branch (ordex/bw_meter)
http://git.open-mesh.org/batctl.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ordex/bw_meterQuoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
By the way, your iperf tests have been done on top of batman-adv? or directly on
the wifi interface?Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Cheers,
I got the results mentioned using interfaces managed by batman-adv.
mh...maybe the pign is not working because of some changes brought by the
bw_meterin the icmp packets. I'll check and I'll let you know.I juested the current ordex/bw_meter branches (batctl and batman-adv) and the
ping works fine.Please, let me know your results.
Cheers,
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 19 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Sorry, I sent the mail incomplete,
So these are the routes:
Equipo1:
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:42 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E3-5GHz 0.680s (251) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (251) E3-2GHz 0.430s (255) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (255) E3-2GHz (252)Equipo3:
Quoted 9 lines
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:d6 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E1-2GHz 0.310s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255) E1-2GHz (255) E1-5GHz 0.550s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255)
routing tables look good. I am wondering where the problem can be.. Can you try to do a "batctl td wlan0-1" while pinging? this may help to understand where the process is blocking.
It would be helpful if you could do that on both the nodes while pinging in only one direction This way we see who receives what.
(commit IDs are ok)
Thank you very much for helping us in debugging this :)
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Hi Antonio,
Quoted 32 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 19 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Sorry, I sent the mail incomplete,
So these are the routes:
Equipo1:
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:42 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E3-5GHz 0.680s (251) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (251) E3-2GHz 0.430s (255) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (255) E3-2GHz (252)Equipo3:
Quoted 9 lines
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:d6 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E1-2GHz 0.310s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255) E1-2GHz (255) E1-5GHz 0.550s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255)
Quoted 5 lines
routing tables look good. I am wondering where the problem can be.. Can you try to do a "batctl td wlan0-1" while pinging? this may help to understand where the process is blocking.
It would be helpful if you could do that on both the nodes while pinging in only one direction This way we see who receives what.
I did it, but the text files for the logs of the nodes with "batctl td" have a size of about 250 kB each one, with just 1 or 2 seconds logging. Is that too much for sending them to the list?
Quoted 3 lines
(commit IDs are ok)
Thank you very much for helping us in debugging this :)
No problem! I've asked things to this list many times and I've got useful answers, so I'm pleased to cooperate.
Regards
Gabriel
Quoted 42 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi Antonio,
Quoted 32 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 19 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Sorry, I sent the mail incomplete,
So these are the routes:
Equipo1:
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:42 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E3-5GHz 0.680s (251) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (251) E3-2GHz 0.430s (255) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (255) E3-2GHz (252)Equipo3:
Quoted 9 lines
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:d6 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E1-2GHz 0.310s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255) E1-2GHz (255) E1-5GHz 0.550s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255)Quoted 5 lines
routing tables look good. I am wondering where the problem can be.. Can you try to do a "batctl td wlan0-1" while pinging? this may help to understand where the process is blocking.
It would be helpful if you could do that on both the nodes while pinging in only one direction This way we see who receives what.
Quoted 3 lines
I did it, but the text files for the logs of the nodes with "batctl td" have a size of about 250 kB each one, with just 1 or 2 seconds logging. Is that too much for sending them to the list?
maybe you can upload them somewhere and then send the link here?
Thanks
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Quoted 43 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 42 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi Antonio,
Quoted 37 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 19 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Sorry, I sent the mail incomplete,
So these are the routes:
Equipo1:
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:42 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E3-5GHz 0.680s (251) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (251) E3-2GHz 0.430s (255) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (255) E3-2GHz (252)Equipo3:
Quoted 9 lines
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:d6 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E1-2GHz 0.310s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255) E1-2GHz (255) E1-5GHz 0.550s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255)routing tables look good. I am wondering where the problem can be.. Can you try to do a "batctl td wlan0-1" while pinging? this may help to understand where the process is blocking.
It would be helpful if you could do that on both the nodes while pinging in only one direction This way we see who receives what.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I did it, but the text files for the logs of the nodes with "batctl td" have a size of about 250 kB each one, with just 1 or 2 seconds logging. Is that too much for sending them to the list?
maybe you can upload them somewhere and then send the link here?
Yes, should be here:
the batctl ping was from E1 to E3.
Regards
Gabriel
Quoted 51 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Quoted 43 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 42 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi Antonio,
Quoted 37 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 19 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Sorry, I sent the mail incomplete,
So these are the routes:
Equipo1:
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:42 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E3-5GHz 0.680s (251) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (251) E3-2GHz 0.430s (255) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (255) E3-2GHz (252)Equipo3:
Quoted 9 lines
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:d6 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E1-2GHz 0.310s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255) E1-2GHz (255) E1-5GHz 0.550s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255)routing tables look good. I am wondering where the problem can be.. Can you try to do a "batctl td wlan0-1" while pinging? this may help to understand where the process is blocking.
It would be helpful if you could do that on both the nodes while pinging in only one direction This way we see who receives what.Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I did it, but the text files for the logs of the nodes with "batctl td" have a size of about 250 kB each one, with just 1 or 2 seconds logging. Is that too much for sending them to the list?
maybe you can upload them somewhere and then send the link here?
Quoted 8 lines
Yes, should be here:
the batctl ping was from E1 to E3.
Hello Gabriel,
there is a lot of noise because you are also generating traffic on the network. However I can see the ICMP Echo Request and then an Echo Reply, therefore the two nodes seem to be exchanging ICMP packets correctly.
I'm checking again to try to understand what went wrong.
Meanwhile, can you please report the output of
"batctl l"
during a bw test after having set the bw_meter log level by running "batctl ll bwm" ?
To get the exact log of one test, you can first run batctl l (this will print all the past log), then you run the test and then you run batctl l again to obtain the interesting log. Please upload it on pastebin too.
Thanks a lot!
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Quoted 73 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 51 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Quoted 43 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 42 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi Antonio,
Quoted 37 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 19 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Sorry, I sent the mail incomplete,
So these are the routes:
Equipo1:
root@Equipo 1:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:42 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E3-5GHz 0.680s (251) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (251) E3-2GHz 0.430s (255) E3-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E3-5GHz (255) E3-2GHz (252)Equipo3:
Quoted 9 lines
root@Equipo 3:~# batctl o
[B.A.T.M.A.N. adv 5ffa8f2, MainIF/MAC: wlan0-1/66:70:02:4e:d9:d6 (bat0)]
Originator last-seen (#/255) Nexthop [outgoingIF]:
Potential nexthops ...E1-2GHz 0.310s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255) E1-2GHz (255) E1-5GHz 0.550s (255) E1-5GHz [ wlan1-1]: E1-5GHz (255)routing tables look good. I am wondering where the problem can be.. Can you try to do a "batctl td wlan0-1" while pinging? this may help to understand where the process is blocking.
It would be helpful if you could do that on both the nodes while pinging in only one direction This way we see who receives what.Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I did it, but the text files for the logs of the nodes with "batctl td" have a size of about 250 kB each one, with just 1 or 2 seconds logging. Is that too much for sending them to the list?
maybe you can upload them somewhere and then send the link here?
Quoted 8 lines
Yes, should be here:
the batctl ping was from E1 to E3.
Hello Gabriel,
there is a lot of noise because you are also generating traffic on the network. However I can see the ICMP Echo Request and then an Echo Reply, therefore the two nodes seem to be exchanging ICMP packets correctly.I'm checking again to try to understand what went wrong.
Meanwhile, can you please report the output of
"batctl l"
during a bw test after having set thebw_meterlog level by running "batctl ll bwm" ?
Quoted 6 lines
To get the exact log of one test, you can first run batctl l (this will print all the past log), then you run the test and then you run batctl l again to obtain the interesting log. Please upload it on pastebin too.
Thanks a lot!
Sure, here they are:
Hi Gabriel,
thank you for your logs
Quoted 17 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Quoted 17 lines
Hello Gabriel,
there is a lot of noise because you are also generating traffic on the network. However I can see the ICMP Echo Request and then an Echo Reply, therefore the two nodes seem to be exchanging ICMP packets correctly.I'm checking again to try to understand what went wrong.
Meanwhile, can you please report the output of
"batctl l"
during a bw test after having set thebw_meterlog level by running "batctl ll bwm" ?To get the exact log of one test, you can first run batctl l (this will print all the past log), then you run the test and then you run batctl l again to obtain the interesting log. Please upload it on pastebin too.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Thanks a lot!
Sure, here they are:
From this log I can see that the protocol is entering Fast Retransmit many times and this happens due to reordering or small losses (the latter option is more realistic on a single hop network - but is it really one hop? I never asked).
The other strange thing I see is the final SRTT value which is 260ms and looks pretty high. Is there anything else going on the network (other traffic or..)?
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Hi,
Quoted 27 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hi Gabriel,
thank you for your logs
Quoted 22 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Quoted 13 lines
Hello Gabriel,
there is a lot of noise because you are also generating traffic on the network. However I can see the ICMP Echo Request and then an Echo Reply, therefore the two nodes seem to be exchanging ICMP packets correctly.I'm checking again to try to understand what went wrong.
Meanwhile, can you please report the output of
"batctl l"
during a bw test after having set thebw_meterlog level by running "batctl ll bwm" ?Quoted 6 lines
To get the exact log of one test, you can first run batctl l (this will print all the past log), then you run the test and then you run batctl l again to obtain the interesting log. Please upload it on pastebin too.
Thanks a lot!
Sure, here they are:
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
From this log I can see that the protocol is entering Fast Retransmit many times
and this happens due to reordering or small losses (the latter option is more realistic on a single hop network - but is it really one hop? I never asked).
Yes, it's one hop. Just two routers at a distance of 2 meters. They have two radios, but in the last tests I've unloaded one of them (the 5 Ghz one) to make it simpler, so they see each other just by one radio interface.
Quoted 3 lines
The other strange thing I see is the final SRTT value which is 260ms and looks pretty high. Is there anything else going on the network (other traffic or..)?
Mmm, I don't know what's that SRTT, but no, there shouldn't be anything else in the air, at least not from me. But If there were interference or something like that, normal iperf would be slower I guess.
Besides, now I've tested connecting my PC via Ethernet to log avoiding interference from myself, also unloading the 2GHz, and loading the 5GHz in the routers (the 5GHz band should be cleaner), and the batctl bw keeps with slower values than iperf, 5Mbps this time.
If you want I could sniff the air with wireshark or something.
Maybe other possibility could be testing the bw meter connecting the routers by etnernet and not wirelessly?
Just for curiosity, you have already tested this on other scenarios and worked OK?
Regards
Gabriel
Quoted 56 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi,
Quoted 27 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hi Gabriel,
thank you for your logs
Quoted 22 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Quoted 13 lines
Hello Gabriel,
there is a lot of noise because you are also generating traffic on the network. However I can see the ICMP Echo Request and then an Echo Reply, therefore the two nodes seem to be exchanging ICMP packets correctly.I'm checking again to try to understand what went wrong.
Meanwhile, can you please report the output of
"batctl l"
during a bw test after having set thebw_meterlog level by running "batctl ll bwm" ?Quoted 6 lines
To get the exact log of one test, you can first run batctl l (this will print all the past log), then you run the test and then you run batctl l again to obtain the interesting log. Please upload it on pastebin too.
Thanks a lot!
Sure, here they are:
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
From this log I can see that the protocol is entering Fast Retransmit many times
and this happens due to reordering or small losses (the latter option is more realistic on a single hop network - but is it really one hop? I never asked).Yes, it's one hop. Just two routers at a distance of 2 meters. They have two radios, but in the last tests I've unloaded one of them (the 5 Ghz one) to make it simpler, so they see each other just by one radio interface.
Quoted 3 lines
The other strange thing I see is the final SRTT value which is 260ms and looks pretty high. Is there anything else going on the network (other traffic or..)?
Mmm, I don't know what's that SRTT, but no, there shouldn't be anything else in the air, at least not from me. But If there were interference or something like that, normal iperf would be slower I guess.
Besides, now I've tested connecting my PC via Ethernet to log avoiding interference from myself, also unloading the 2GHz, and loading the 5GHz in the routers (the 5GHz band should be cleaner), and the batctl bw keeps with slower values than iperf, 5Mbps this time.
Quoted 4 lines
If you want I could sniff the air with wireshark or something.
Maybe other possibility could be testing the bw meter connecting the routers by etnernet and not wirelessly?
Yes, you can try ethernet too. it works the same way.
Quoted 3 lines
Just for curiosity, you have already tested this on other scenarios and worked OK?
yeah, I tested it using my routers (OM2Ps) and it worked good.
You can try to sniff one or two seconds of traffic with "batctl td" on the nodes. This will give us what is exactly going in the air.
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Quoted 68 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Quoted 56 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Hi,
Quoted 27 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hi Gabriel,
thank you for your logs
Quoted 22 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Quoted 13 lines
Hello Gabriel,
there is a lot of noise because you are also generating traffic on the network. However I can see the ICMP Echo Request and then an Echo Reply, therefore the two nodes seem to be exchanging ICMP packets correctly.I'm checking again to try to understand what went wrong.
Meanwhile, can you please report the output of
"batctl l"
during a bw test after having set thebw_meterlog level by running "batctl ll bwm" ?Quoted 6 lines
To get the exact log of one test, you can first run batctl l (this will print all the past log), then you run the test and then you run batctl l again to obtain the interesting log. Please upload it on pastebin too.
Thanks a lot!
Sure, here they are:
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
From this log I can see that the protocol is entering Fast Retransmit many times
and this happens due to reordering or small losses (the latter option is more realistic on a single hop network - but is it really one hop? I never asked).Yes, it's one hop. Just two routers at a distance of 2 meters. They have two radios, but in the last tests I've unloaded one of them (the 5 Ghz one) to make it simpler, so they see each other just by one radio interface.
Quoted 3 lines
The other strange thing I see is the final SRTT value which is 260ms and looks pretty high. Is there anything else going on the network (other traffic or..)?
Mmm, I don't know what's that SRTT, but no, there shouldn't be anything else in the air, at least not from me. But If there were interference or something like that, normal iperf would be slower I guess.
Besides, now I've tested connecting my PC via Ethernet to log avoiding interference from myself, also unloading the 2GHz, and loading the 5GHz in the routers (the 5GHz band should be cleaner), and the batctl bw keeps with slower values than iperf, 5Mbps this time.
Quoted 4 lines
If you want I could sniff the air with wireshark or something.
Maybe other possibility could be testing the bw meter connecting the routers by etnernet and not wirelessly?
Yes, you can try ethernet too. it works the same way.
Quoted 3 lines
Just for curiosity, you have already tested this on other scenarios and worked OK?
Quoted 8 lines
yeah, I tested it using my routers (OM2Ps) and it worked good.
You can try to sniff one or two seconds of traffic with "batctl td" on the nodes. This will give us what is exactly going in the air.
Cheers,
This time, I logged just from Equipo 1, to generate less traffic.
I noticed something weird. When I run batctl bw I get this time something like 12 Mbps. If I wait for about 10 seconds and repeat the command, I get something similar, but, if I run the command inmediatly after the bw test finishes, the result improves a lot, here you can see the commands with the seconds between them:
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz Fri Jun 7 16:40:09 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3064500 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.46 MB/s (12.26 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz Fri Jun 7 16:40:15 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3201000 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.53 MB/s (12.80 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz Fri Jun 7 16:40:18 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 14545500 Bytes.
Throughput: 6.94 MB/s (58.18 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz Fri Jun 7 16:40:20 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 18729000 Bytes.
Throughput: 8.93 MB/s (74.91 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz Fri Jun 7 16:40:23 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 21067500 Bytes.
Throughput: 10.05 MB/s (84.26 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz Fri Jun 7 16:40:26 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 22351500 Bytes.
Throughput: 10.66 MB/s (89.40 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz Fri Jun 7 16:40:37 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 13281000 Bytes.
Throughput: 6.33 MB/s (53.12 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz Fri Jun 7 16:40:49 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3204000 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.53 MB/s (12.82 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
Maybe something in the time calculation is wrong?
The logs are too heavy for pastebin, so here it's just the part corresponding to the first batctl bw in Equipo1:
If you want to watch the whole log I can send you, or paste it in parts.
Regards
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 72 lines · Gabriel Tolón
This time, I logged just from Equipo 1, to generate less traffic.
I noticed something weird. When I run batctl bw I get this time something like 12 Mbps. If I wait for about 10 seconds and repeat the command, I get something similar, but, if I run the command inmediatly after the bw test finishes, the result improves a lot, here you can see the commands with the seconds between them:
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:09 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3064500 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.46 MB/s (12.26 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:15 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3201000 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.53 MB/s (12.80 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:18 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 14545500 Bytes.
Throughput: 6.94 MB/s (58.18 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:20 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 18729000 Bytes.
Throughput: 8.93 MB/s (74.91 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:23 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 21067500 Bytes.
Throughput: 10.05 MB/s (84.26 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:26 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 22351500 Bytes.
Throughput: 10.66 MB/s (89.40 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:37 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 13281000 Bytes.
Throughput: 6.33 MB/s (53.12 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:49 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3204000 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.53 MB/s (12.82 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
Quoted 2 lines
Maybe something in the time calculation is wrong?
This strange. The point is that the receiver takes at least 1 second to shutdown the session. Theoretically (and this is what happened during my tests) the receiver should refuse any "second new" connection and the sender should then get 0 throughput. Can I ask you what wifi driver is your device using? Anyway, there must be something wrong in the bw meter given that you see this behaviour only with it and not with iperf.
Did you try a short run over Ethernet? I'm curious to see if the behaviour will be the same.
Quoted 5 lines
The logs aretoo heavy for pastebin, so here it's just the part corresponding to the first batctl bw in Equipo1:
Thanks for the log.
I saw something strange:
16:40:09.533172 BAT 64:70:02:4e:d9:43 > E3-5GHz: ICMP BW type MSG (0), id 0, seq 2018499, ttl 50, v 15, length 1510
16:40:09.533392 BAT 64:70:02:4e:d9:43 > E3-5GHz: ICMP BW type MSG (0), id 0, seq 2049999, ttl 50, v 15, length 1510
These are two packets sent one after the other but the second sequence number is not equal to the first + 1500 (payload size)
Quoted 2 lines
If you want to watch the whole log I can send you, or paste it in parts.
This gave me already some hints. I'll dig into the code to try to spot what's wrong. But strange that I did not see any problem during my tests..maybe something introduced later by accident.
Thank you so far. I'm still curious about the Ethernet test, then I'll try to upload some more code to test :)
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Quoted 11 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Thanks for the log.
I saw something strange:
16:40:09.533172 BAT 64:70:02:4e:d9:43 > E3-5GHz: ICMP BW type MSG (0), id 0, seq 2018499, ttl 50, v 15, length 1510
16:40:09.533392 BAT 64:70:02:4e:d9:43 > E3-5GHz: ICMP BW type MSG (0), id 0, seq 2049999, ttl 50, v 15, length 1510These are two packets sent one after the other but the second sequence number is not equal to the first + 1500 (payload size)
After looking at the log again I think this issue is due to batctl td not being able to dump all the packets rather than some strange bw_meter behaviour...
clueless again :(
However, let's see if the Ethernet test gives us some more hints.
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Quoted 75 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 72 lines · Gabriel Tolón
This time, I logged just from Equipo 1, to generate less traffic.
I noticed something weird. When I run batctl bw I get this time something like 12 Mbps. If I wait for about 10 seconds and repeat the command, I get something similar, but, if I run the command inmediatly after the bw test finishes, the result improves a lot, here you can see the commands with the seconds between them:
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:09 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3064500 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.46 MB/s (12.26 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:15 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3201000 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.53 MB/s (12.80 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:18 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 14545500 Bytes.
Throughput: 6.94 MB/s (58.18 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:20 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 18729000 Bytes.
Throughput: 8.93 MB/s (74.91 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:23 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 21067500 Bytes.
Throughput: 10.05 MB/s (84.26 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:26 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 22351500 Bytes.
Throughput: 10.66 MB/s (89.40 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:37 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 13281000 Bytes.
Throughput: 6.33 MB/s (53.12 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-5GHz
Fri Jun 7 16:40:49 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d7
Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 3204000 Bytes.
Throughput: 1.53 MB/s (12.82 Mbps)
root@Equipo 1:~#
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Maybe something in the time calculation is wrong?
This strange. The point is that the receiver takes at least 1 second to shutdown the session. Theoretically (and this is what happened during my tests) the receiver should refuse any "second new" connection and the sender should then get 0 throughput. Can I ask you what wifi driver is your device using?
It's using ath9k.
Quoted 2 lines
Anyway, there must be something wrong in the bw meter given that you see this behaviour only with it and not with iperf.
Yes, with iperf I didn't notice anything strange.
Quoted 22 lines
Did you try a short run over Ethernet? I'm curious to see if the behaviour will be the same.
Quoted 5 lines
The logs aretoo heavy for pastebin, so here it's just the part corresponding to the first batctl bw in Equipo1:
Thanks for the log.
I saw something strange:
16:40:09.533172 BAT 64:70:02:4e:d9:43 > E3-5GHz: ICMP BW type MSG (0), id 0, seq 2018499, ttl 50, v 15, length 1510
16:40:09.533392 BAT 64:70:02:4e:d9:43 > E3-5GHz: ICMP BW type MSG (0), id 0, seq 2049999, ttl 50, v 15, length 1510These are two packets sent one after the other but the second sequence number is not equal to the first + 1500 (payload size)
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
If you want to watch the whole log I can send you, or paste it in parts.
This gave me already some hints. I'll dig into the code to try to spot what's wrong. But strange that I did not see any problem during my tests..maybe something introduced later by accident.
Yes, that's strange, that's why I asked if you had tested the same. It couldn't be due to hardware differences? Just in case WDR3500 have AR9344 SoC.
Quoted 4 lines
Thank you so far. I'm still curious about the Ethernet test, then I'll try to upload some more code to test :)
Now I've made some tests with ethernet, with similar results:
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~#
root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-eth0 Fri Jun 7 18:36:10 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d5 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 1354500 Bytes.
Throughput: 661.13 KB/s (5416.00 Kbps) root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-eth0 Fri Jun 7 18:36:14 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d5 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 1393500 Bytes.
Throughput: 679.69 KB/s (5568.00 Kbps) root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-eth0 Fri Jun 7 18:36:17 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d5 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 5550000 Bytes.
Throughput: 2.65 MB/s (22.20 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-eth0 Fri Jun 7 18:36:19 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d5 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 9412500 Bytes.
Throughput: 4.49 MB/s (37.65 Mbps) root@Equipo 1:~# date; batctl bw -t 2000 E3-eth0 Fri Jun 7 18:36:26 UTC 2013
Bandwidth meter called towards 64:70:02:4e:d9:d5 Test over in 2000ms.
Sent 1389000 Bytes.
Throughput: 677.73 KB/s (5552.00 Kbps) root@Equipo 1:~#
Here the batctl td on Equipo1, like before, cut because of size:
This time there's a warning about an unknown batman packet type.
Regards
Gabriel
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 5 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Yes, that's strange, that's why I asked if you had tested the same. It couldn't be due to hardware differences? Just in case WDR3500 have AR9344 SoC.
I guess it's the same:
system type : Atheros AR9344 rev 2
and this is one test I just performed:
# batctl bw a6:86:74:00:0f:12 Bandwidth meter called towards a6:86:74:00:0f:12 Test over in 10030ms. Sent 187528500 Bytes. Throughput: 17.83 MB/s (149.57 Mbps)
There must be something different in our setup that is probably triggering a bug in the bw_meter (I guess).
Here you have more results from tests performed a couple of weeks ago.
Maybe I find a couple of WDR3500 on which I can remotely try to debug the problem....
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Quoted 1 line · Antonio Quartulli
Here you have more results from tests performed a couple of weeks ago.
I forgot the link, sorry :-)
http://www.open-mesh.org/projects/batman-adv/wiki/Bandwidth_meter_tests
Cheers,
Signature · 4 lines
Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Quoted 22 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 5 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Yes, that's strange, that's why I asked if you had tested the same. It couldn't be due to hardware differences? Just in case WDR3500 have AR9344 SoC.
I guess it's the same:
system type : Atheros AR9344 rev 2
and this is one test I just performed:
# batctl bw a6:86:74:00:0f:12 Bandwidth meter called towards a6:86:74:00:0f:12 Test over in 10030ms. Sent 187528500 Bytes. Throughput: 17.83 MB/s (149.57 Mbps)There must be something different in our setup that is probably triggering a bug in the
bw_meter(I guess).
Quoted 6 lines
Here you have more results from tests performed a couple of weeks ago.
Maybe I find a couple of WDR3500 on which I can remotely try to debug the problem....
Antonio, maybe you can use the WDR4300 routers from the battlemesh. Ufo reported on the WBM list they were still available online for testing. P4u (guifi) also mentioned he has a WDR... testbed.
cheers,
Nico
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRs8vQAAoJEPHORz17N0TFbjMH/jk5RSRz9Hy+5npRWc5JAfcy CSxzYSy+qsgihiqv6byeBzHV1U7cE/QKTmhWksEPgfqqnjkU+MHkYMwwXDATpR4j RcXPxPsGVrtCsZEKMIf33Owb+lBC/AUiyfputZefdlNq5c0vt/FCoSAM3Zy1qJJ1 Uzyps85b4aKnlixd9u40XWQ/KewG6R41jgevkECfN77f3ViUBLbQbdK1+om5ytP5 DglNbjUtn/EG8rY/+uRK2jVXsgSj3DDSeutJeakE76JgjdspWA3X8O4/GpHvyiZo ZqjS5Q+QHyDLSGRlWOb7g/vUAM3xRwrr5un2Hn5gJmQ79qF2G7lBiUDZr3Y7nnk= =y1R2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi Antonio
Quoted 13 lines · Antonio Quartulli
Hello Gabriel,
Quoted 5 lines · Gabriel Tolón
Yes, that's strange, that's why I asked if you had tested the same. It couldn't be due to hardware differences? Just in case WDR3500 have AR9344 SoC.
I guess it's the same:
system type : Atheros AR9344 rev 2
Quoted 7 lines
and this is one test I just performed:
# batctl bw a6:86:74:00:0f:12 Bandwidth meter called towards a6:86:74:00:0f:12 Test over in 10030ms. Sent 187528500 Bytes. Throughput: 17.83 MB/s (149.57 Mbps)
Great!
Quoted 3 lines
There must be something different in our setup that is probably triggering a bug in the
bw_meter(I guess).
Maybe. If you find something you want to try just tell me. Thanks!
Quoted 11 lines
Here you have more results from tests performed a couple of weeks ago.
Maybe I find a couple of WDR3500 on which I can remotely try to debug the problem....
Cheers,
Regards
Gabriel