Re: [riot-devel] Benchmarks

[Oleg Hahm]

Hi Simon!

> Yes I tried to compile the rpl_udp example for the samr21-xpro but it did
> not have enough RAM. Even with RPL in non-storing mode and a very small
> routing table it would not fit.

Well, in non-storing you basically don't need any routing table (except for
the root node), but still it sounds weird to me that it doesn't fit. I guess
some optimization could be doable but...

> Ultimately we would be looking to run UDP/RPL/COAP on top of the
> IPv6/6lowpan/802.15.4 stack.
> 
> For the evaluation just UDP would be fine to give me an idea if a M0+ would
> be fast enough.
> 
> Is the size of RAM/flash for RIOT likely to increase? Currently building the
> rpl_udp example results in 109K text+data, 37K bss. We were thinking of
> going for a M0+ with 128KB flash and 64KB RAM but this does not leave much
> room for expansion.

Hopefully and most likely the contrary will be the case. As the current network
stack could definitely need quite some memory optimizations and wastes a lot
of memory by many memcpy operations, we decided to completely redesign it, in
order come up with a much slimmer solution. (Apart of having identified other
drawbacks of the old solution.)

This new stack should definitely fit on the 32 kB RAM of the SAMr21 including
UDP/RPL/CoAP, but I cannot give any concrete numbers by now. Hauke, Martine,
can you give some rough numbers for the current state of the implementation?

Another advantage of the redesigned network stack will be its configurability.
The current version, for example, always expects the default minimum MTU for
IPv6 of 1280 bytes and thus reserves this once in the outgoing and once for
the incoming buffer.

For more information on the new network stack, see our paper on
http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01968 and the minutes from the meeting in February:
https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/wiki/minutes-network-task-force-feb-2015

There is also most of the functionality already out there on Github as Pull
Requests.

> Am I correct in thinking that the IPv6/6lowpan/UDP/TCP/RPL stacks are fairly
> complete but there is quite a bit missing at the 802.15.4 mac layer such as
> beacons and security? I assume this will increase the code size of RIOT?

Yes, this assumption is mostly correct. The biggest limitations for the upper
layer stack are:
 - In the current version, 6LoWPAN and IPv6 are mostly entangled and therefore
   IPv6 cannot be used standalone.
 - Without support for multiple radios on one board, similar to Contiki, the
   border router will work only over stdio over a serial port (and haven't
   been tested for quite a while).
 - Only the basic TCP feature set is implemented. Due to memory constraints,
   the window size is fixed to one.

However, as I said before, we can expect rather a _de_creasing code size for
the new version of the network stack, eliminating these shortcomings.

Cheers,
Oleg
-- 
printk ("Barf\n");
linux-2.6.6/arch/v850/kernel/module.c


pgppxxts9bQVP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] Benchmarks

[Simon Vincent]

Yes I tried to compile the rpl_udp example for the samr21-xpro but it 
did not have enough RAM. Even with RPL in non-storing mode and a very 
small routing table it would not fit.


Ultimately we would be looking to run UDP/RPL/COAP on top of the 
IPv6/6lowpan/802.15.4 stack.


For the evaluation just UDP would be fine to give me an idea if a M0+ 
would be fast enough.


Is the size of RAM/flash for RIOT likely to increase? Currently building 
the rpl_udp example results in 109K text+data, 37K bss. We were thinking 
of going for a M0+ with 128KB flash and 64KB RAM but this does not leave 
much room for expansion.


Am I correct in thinking that the IPv6/6lowpan/UDP/TCP/RPL stacks are 
fairly complete but there is quite a bit missing at the 802.15.4 mac 
layer such as beacons and security? I assume this will increase the code 
size of RIOT?


Thanks

Simon

On 18/03/15 06:51, Ludwig Ortmann wrote:

Hi,

I think our only m0+/802.15.4 board is the samr21-xpro and there are problems 
with the current/old network stack because of its memory demands.
That said: which  protocol on top of IP are you interested in?
I assume you want to ignore RPL and any other side-tasks for this evaluation?

Cheers,
Ludwig

Am 17. März 2015 17:46:52 MEZ, schrieb Simon Vincent :

Hi Craig,

We have a 802.15.4 transceiver that is capable of 250kbps. We are
thinking of using this with a Cortex M0+ but wanted to make sure that
the M0+ would have the processing power to handle the
802.15.4/6lowpan/ipv6 stack at a datarate of 250kbps.

I just wondered if anyone had done any datarate measurements on
existing
development boards using the Cortex M0+?

- Simon

On 17/03/15 16:20, Craig Younkins wrote:

Hi Simon,

Throughput will be highly dependent upon the RF environment and what
transceiver you are using. The M0+ most likely has enough power to do
it under ideal conditions, but retransmissions due to collisions will
limit the effective bandwidth.

You can use 900 mhz and 2.4 ghz transceivers with 15.4. ~900 is
significantly less crowded but lower theoretical bandwidth. The Atmel
212B is 900 Mhz and specs 1000 kbps as the max air data rate.

Which transceiver are you using?

Craig Younkins

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Simon Vincent
mailto:simon.vinc...@xsilon.com>> wrote:

 Has anyone done any performance tests to see what throughput can
 be achieved using RIOT?

 I would be interested to know if the Cortex M0+ is powerful

enough

 to sustain 250Kb/s TCP over 6lowpan/802.15.4.

 Does RIOT have any mechanism to measure CPU usage?

 - Simon
 ___
 devel mailing list
 devel@riot-os.org 
 http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel




___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel





___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] Benchmarks

[Oleg Hahm]

Hi Ludwig!

> I think our only m0+/802.15.4 board is the samr21-xpro and there are
> problems with the current/old network stack because of its memory demands.

I haven't followed the discussion about RPL and UDP on the SAMR21 lately, but
doesn't these memory problems only exist when using with RPL in storing mode
and the default routing table size of up to 128 nodes?

Cheers,
Oleg
-- 
The best thing about mathematical jokes is left as an exercise for the reader.


pgpAEUZPdUyLz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] Benchmarks

[Ludwig Ortmann]

Hi,

I think our only m0+/802.15.4 board is the samr21-xpro and there are problems 
with the current/old network stack because of its memory demands.
That said: which  protocol on top of IP are you interested in?
I assume you want to ignore RPL and any other side-tasks for this evaluation?

Cheers,
Ludwig

Am 17. März 2015 17:46:52 MEZ, schrieb Simon Vincent :
>Hi Craig,
>
>We have a 802.15.4 transceiver that is capable of 250kbps. We are 
>thinking of using this with a Cortex M0+ but wanted to make sure that 
>the M0+ would have the processing power to handle the 
>802.15.4/6lowpan/ipv6 stack at a datarate of 250kbps.
>
>I just wondered if anyone had done any datarate measurements on
>existing 
>development boards using the Cortex M0+?
>
>- Simon
>
>On 17/03/15 16:20, Craig Younkins wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Throughput will be highly dependent upon the RF environment and what 
>> transceiver you are using. The M0+ most likely has enough power to do
>
>> it under ideal conditions, but retransmissions due to collisions will
>
>> limit the effective bandwidth.
>>
>> You can use 900 mhz and 2.4 ghz transceivers with 15.4. ~900 is 
>> significantly less crowded but lower theoretical bandwidth. The Atmel
>
>> 212B is 900 Mhz and specs 1000 kbps as the max air data rate.
>>
>> Which transceiver are you using?
>>
>> Craig Younkins
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Simon Vincent 
>> mailto:simon.vinc...@xsilon.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone done any performance tests to see what throughput can
>> be achieved using RIOT?
>>
>> I would be interested to know if the Cortex M0+ is powerful
>enough
>> to sustain 250Kb/s TCP over 6lowpan/802.15.4.
>>
>> Does RIOT have any mechanism to measure CPU usage?
>>
>> - Simon
>> ___
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@riot-os.org 
>> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@riot-os.org
>> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>devel mailing list
>devel@riot-os.org
>http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] Benchmarks

[Simon Vincent]

Hi Craig,

We have a 802.15.4 transceiver that is capable of 250kbps. We are 
thinking of using this with a Cortex M0+ but wanted to make sure that 
the M0+ would have the processing power to handle the 
802.15.4/6lowpan/ipv6 stack at a datarate of 250kbps.


I just wondered if anyone had done any datarate measurements on existing 
development boards using the Cortex M0+?


- Simon

On 17/03/15 16:20, Craig Younkins wrote:

Hi Simon,

Throughput will be highly dependent upon the RF environment and what 
transceiver you are using. The M0+ most likely has enough power to do 
it under ideal conditions, but retransmissions due to collisions will 
limit the effective bandwidth.


You can use 900 mhz and 2.4 ghz transceivers with 15.4. ~900 is 
significantly less crowded but lower theoretical bandwidth. The Atmel 
212B is 900 Mhz and specs 1000 kbps as the max air data rate.


Which transceiver are you using?

Craig Younkins

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Simon Vincent 
mailto:simon.vinc...@xsilon.com>> wrote:


Has anyone done any performance tests to see what throughput can
be achieved using RIOT?

I would be interested to know if the Cortex M0+ is powerful enough
to sustain 250Kb/s TCP over 6lowpan/802.15.4.

Does RIOT have any mechanism to measure CPU usage?

- Simon
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org 
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel




___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [riot-devel] Benchmarks

[Craig Younkins]

Hi Simon,

Throughput will be highly dependent upon the RF environment and what
transceiver you are using. The M0+ most likely has enough power to do it
under ideal conditions, but retransmissions due to collisions will limit
the effective bandwidth.

You can use 900 mhz and 2.4 ghz transceivers with 15.4. ~900 is
significantly less crowded but lower theoretical bandwidth. The Atmel 212B
is 900 Mhz and specs 1000 kbps as the max air data rate.

Which transceiver are you using?

Craig Younkins

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Simon Vincent 
wrote:

> Has anyone done any performance tests to see what throughput can be
> achieved using RIOT?
>
> I would be interested to know if the Cortex M0+ is powerful enough to
> sustain 250Kb/s TCP over 6lowpan/802.15.4.
>
> Does RIOT have any mechanism to measure CPU usage?
>
> - Simon
> ___
> devel mailing list
> devel@riot-os.org
> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[riot-devel] Benchmarks

[Simon Vincent]

Has anyone done any performance tests to see what throughput can be 
achieved using RIOT?


I would be interested to know if the Cortex M0+ is powerful enough to 
sustain 250Kb/s TCP over 6lowpan/802.15.4.


Does RIOT have any mechanism to measure CPU usage?

- Simon
___
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel