Send USRP-users mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of USRP-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: about public ip for USRP N210 (Zan)
2. Bus Powered B210 (Jason A. Donenfeld)
3. HF Transverter for B2x0 (Jason A. Donenfeld)
4. Re: Bus Powered B210 (Matt Ettus)
5. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (Matt Ettus)
6. Re: RX timeout after longer inactivity (Ales Povalac)
7. Re: Bus Powered B210 (Martin Braun)
8. Re: HF Transverter for B2x0 (James Balean)
9. Implementation of functions not found in UHD
(=?ISO-8859-1?B?NDQyNzc3ODE2?=)
10. Re: Implementation of functions not found in UHD (Martin Braun)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 10:04:07 +0100
From: Zan <[email protected]>
To: Marcus M?ller <[email protected]>, [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] about public ip for USRP N210
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Marcus and Nicholas,
Thanks for your great emails and I would try it.
Best regards
Alex
On 03/07/2014 10:09 PM, Marcus M?ller wrote:
> To add a little to Nicholas' great mail,
>
> gnuradio does quite a good job scaling: Every Block runs in its own
> thread context, and as long as your multicore architecture allows it,
> this means that your gnu radio flowgraph will automatically use as
> many CPUs as there are blocks (if that is of advantage).
> However, at least the blocks right after the hardware sample source
> have to dean with all the bandwidth with only one CPU (multithreaded
> blocks of course circumvent that limitation) - I don't know
> gr-ieee802.11 very well, but I guess the limiting factor will be the
> decimating filters at the input of OFDM demod (the FFT operations are
> multithreaded by default, if I'm not mistaken), or the OFDM sync.
>
> You can use GNU Radio's performance counters to find out where the
> heavy part of processing takes place on your i5. If that is
> well-distributed among blocks: You're in luck :); if not, find out if
> the most intensive block is multithreaded.
>
> Greetings,
> Marcus
>
> On 03/07/2014 08:42 PM, Linnenkamp, Nicholas wrote:
>> Alex,
>>
>> I am not able to give too many suggestions about the N210 but I do
>> have some experience with virtualization and performance servers and
>> can give you some insight.
>>
>> I don't believe that the N210 works with DHCP directly. You would
>> probably need to contact your DHCP administrator and ask for a static
>> address to be given for your N210 (provide him/her your MAC address)
>> and then program the IP address into the N210 directly. This allows
>> the unit to have a public, routable IP address and reserves the
>> address to keep other people from using it inadvertently.
>>
>> The trend lately has been towards parallel processing which means
>> that your typical high performance server may have 32 processors but
>> they only run at 2.5 GHz each. You get access to tons of memory if
>> you need it but the speed of an individual processor may be a
>> bottleneck for some programs. Unless your program is multi-threaded
>> and can take advantage of the numerous other processors your
>> performance may actually be worse by moving to a high performance
>> server due to the slower processors.
>>
>> Another point to consider is the virtual machine software that is
>> being run on the high performance server. Unless you are running a
>> "bare-metal" version of your virtual machine software, such as VMware
>> ESXi, then you also have to contend with the underlying operating
>> system fighting for resources with your virtual machine. This can
>> cause intermittent interruptions in processing which can cause
>> problems for real-time system performance.
>>
>> In summary, it will really depend on if your application is
>> multi-threaded, how fast the individual processors are on your high
>> performance server, access to ample memory, type of virtualization
>> software, and ability to reserve a public DHCP address from your
>> domain administrator. I don't see a reason why it wouldn't work if
>> the above requirements were met as that is exactly what
>> virtualization was meant to do.
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> Nicholas
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: USRP-users [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of alex
>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:08 AM
>> To: USRP-users
>> Subject: [USRP-users] about public ip for USRP N210
>>
>> Dear All,
>> I have some questions about the public IP of N210. Hope some body can
>> give me some suggestions. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> 1) I am considering if the USRP N210 can be configure a public IP by
>> DHCP? and I can configure a powerful server remotely to work on the
>> USRP.
>>
>> 2) Does someone have experience to configure a Virtual Machine on a
>> powerful server to run with USRP N210 and work on a high sampling
>> rate (20MHz for gr-ieee802.11)? Now I am using desktop with i5
>> (3.6ghz) to run the code and it seems to meet the threshold for
>> overflow. In our lab, we are going to buy a very powerful server and
>> maybe I can configure some powerful VM to run it.
>>
>> Any suggestions would be appreciate.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> USRP-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> USRP-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 23:44:47 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [USRP-users] Bus Powered B210
Message-ID:
<cahmme9pbx9bcy-1e82umwgdngdn9hxa4zv5skmfygupyadj...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello all,
When the B210 is used without MIMO mode, does it consume the same
amount of power as the B200? More generally, is the B210 able to be
powered off the USB bus with stability when not using MIMO?
Thanks,
Jason
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 05:38:52 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<cahmme9pmwzmg6pazvcdtmqxw49vk6dnzeq6ktb6402odejg...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi folks,
The bladeRF has a fancy HF transverter add-on [1] that seems to
interface really intimately with the bladeRF itself. Is there anything
available for the B2x0? NooElec sells the Ham It Up [2], which is an
upconverter with no corresponding downconverter (thus, useless for
me), and doesn't seem especially high quality. Do any high quality HF
transverter solutions exist for use with the B2x0?
Thanks,
Jason
[1] http://www.nuand.com/blog/product/hf-vhf-transverter/
[2]
http://www.nooelec.com/store/ham-it-up-v1-0-rf-upconverter-for-software-defined-radio.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:52:16 -0700
From: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Bus Powered B210
Message-ID:
<CAN=1kn8v_h8nf+4e+zrvnmwos4xji-xvkg3ttr-t60fn7f7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The B210 will pull roughly the same power as the B200 when they are doing
SISO. The B210 can be bus powered in nearly all situations, the exception
being 2x2 MIMO with full duplex at higher frequencies (4-6 GHz).
Matt
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> When the B210 is used without MIMO mode, does it consume the same
> amount of power as the B200? More generally, is the B210 able to be
> powered off the USB bus with stability when not using MIMO?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140309/15313628/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:56:59 -0700
From: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID:
<CAN=1kn8cPyVQYxH2xpqioG04n4HGBji+8Xnyjv=pqpxr-2g...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Although the official spec for the B200 and B210 is 70 MHz, it will
actually go down well below 50 MHz. However, if you wish to do lower HF
frequencies a converter like the Ham-it-up is useful. Our
daughterboard-based radios go down to DC with the LFRX and LFTX.
Matt
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> The bladeRF has a fancy HF transverter add-on [1] that seems to
> interface really intimately with the bladeRF itself. Is there anything
> available for the B2x0? NooElec sells the Ham It Up [2], which is an
> upconverter with no corresponding downconverter (thus, useless for
> me), and doesn't seem especially high quality. Do any high quality HF
> transverter solutions exist for use with the B2x0?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
> [1] http://www.nuand.com/blog/product/hf-vhf-transverter/
> [2]
> http://www.nooelec.com/store/ham-it-up-v1-0-rf-upconverter-for-software-defined-radio.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140309/70b2c35f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:13:41 +0100
From: Ales Povalac <[email protected]>
To: Michael West <[email protected]>
Cc: usrp-users <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] RX timeout after longer inactivity
Message-ID:
<cadymgmyyspyayjsyol3_vbsrf9y-0a5vofjwr-hlo-nxex9...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Michael,
system is Windows 7 64-bit, tested on several computers. Last
experiment was with N210 and WBX, same issue was also on N200 and
TVRX2. Gigabit adapters are from Intel (PCIe) and Realtek (PCI).
Regards,
Ales
2014-03-07 1:21 GMT+01:00 Michael West <[email protected]>:
> Ales,
>
> Can you provide me with some information about your set up (i.e. OS, type of
> device, type of daughterboards, etc...)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael E. West
> Senior Software Design Engineer
> Ettus Research
> www.ettus.com
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Michael West <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Ales,
>>
>> Thanks for letting us know. We will try to reproduce the issue and file a
>> bug if appropriate. I will let you know if we find a workaround or fix.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Michael E. West
>> Senior Software Design Engineer
>> Ettus Research
>> www.ettus.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Ales Povalac <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> we have a problem with UHD RX code. If there is a delay between
>>> get_rx_stream() and issue_stream_cmd() longer than ca. 64 seconds, the
>>> recv() call always fails with ERROR_CODE_TIMEOUT.
>>>
>>> Issue can be reproduced in rx_samples_to_file example by adding a
>>> delay of >64 seconds before stream command, diff at
>>> http://pastebin.com/MFDNVyYy . Threshold is near 64 seconds - 60 sec
>>> always works, 70 sec always fails with "Timeout while streaming".
>>>
>>> I am on maint branch of UHD, tested also on 003.005.001 with the same
>>> result. Any ideas how to fix this issue?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ales
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> USRP-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:23:37 +0100
From: Martin Braun <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Bus Powered B210
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 03/10/2014 05:52 AM, Matt Ettus wrote:
> The B210 will pull roughly the same power as the B200 when they are
> doing SISO. The B210 can be bus powered in nearly all situations, the
> exception being 2x2 MIMO with full duplex at higher frequencies (4-6 GHz).
When using a GPSDO with the B210, using a power supply is also recommended.
M
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 23:59:13 +1100
From: James Balean <[email protected]>
To: Matt Ettus <[email protected]>, "Jason A. Donenfeld"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Matt,
I too am interested in integrated HF transverter solutions for the B2X0. Could
you confirm for those deciding between B2X0 and the bladeRF competitor whether
or not an add-on module such as this is something that Ettus would consider
down the track? Or has this been ruled this out to better differentiate the
higher price-point USRP models?
Thanks,
James
________________________________
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:56:59 -0700
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [USRP-users] HF Transverter for B2x0
>
>
>
> Although the official spec for the B200 and B210 is 70 MHz, it will
> actually go down well below 50 MHz. However, if you wish to do lower
> HF frequencies a converter like the Ham-it-up is useful. Our
> daughterboard-based radios go down to DC with the LFRX and LFTX.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> The bladeRF has a fancy HF transverter add-on [1] that seems to
> interface really intimately with the bladeRF itself. Is there anything
> available for the B2x0? NooElec sells the Ham It Up [2], which is an
> upconverter with no corresponding downconverter (thus, useless for
> me), and doesn't seem especially high quality. Do any high quality HF
> transverter solutions exist for use with the B2x0?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
> [1] http://www.nuand.com/blog/product/hf-vhf-transverter/
> [2]
> http://www.nooelec.com/store/ham-it-up-v1-0-rf-upconverter-for-software-defined-radio.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________ USRP-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:31:29 +0800
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?B?NDQyNzc3ODE2?=" <[email protected]>
To: "=?ISO-8859-1?B?VVNSUC11c2Vycw==?=" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USRP-users] Implementation of functions not found in UHD
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi,everybody
I find there is no implementation of the function libusb_control_transaction in
the uhd repository. It is called by function fx3_control_write. Would you like
to help me ?
Thank you very much!
Chuang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ettus.com/pipermail/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com/attachments/20140310/4b3813ca/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:53:33 +0100
From: Martin Braun <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [USRP-users] Implementation of functions not found in UHD
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 03/10/2014 02:31 PM, 442777816 wrote:
> Hi,everybody
>
> I find there is no implementation of the function
> libusb_control_transaction in the uhd repository. It is called by
> function fx3_control_write. Would you like to help me ?
> Thank you very much!
Hey Chuang,
all functions starting with libusb_* are part of libUSB, a third-party
library we use to control our USB-based devices. You'll find the
implementation in their code. (http://www.libusb.org/)
Martin
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
USRP-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
------------------------------
End of USRP-users Digest, Vol 43, Issue 10
******************************************
