[Tinyos-devel] Testing FTSP

[Omprakash Gnawali]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Branislav Kusy <kusy at stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> these results are really bad, there should be no red crosses after the
>>> initial synchronization period (first 40-50 seconds). is there a way to
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>>> re-run the experiment (first 500s would be enough) while logging the
>>> whole
>>> debug struct(test_ftsp_msg_t)? could i also see the deployment map?
>>
>> Just so I understand this, I am dividing these attributes into useful
>> and not useful (log trigger is a periodic timer in my experiment).
>> Please let me know if you agree:
>>
>> Not useful:
>>             report->counter = rcm->counter;
>>             report->local_rx_timestamp = rxTimestamp;
>>             report->global_rx_timestamp = rxTimestamp;
> looking at the counter vs the local time is very useful in finding out
> problems in timestamping (code that records time deep in the MAC layer,
> after receiving SFD interrupt). so i'd include this data as useful.

Isn't this counter the count value in RadioCountToLeds pkt? If so, I
don't have this information because I don't run RadioCountToLeds. I
trigger logging using a periodic timer.

...

> would be a problem. increasing timesync period could be a solution? but
> first, it would be very useful to see the local time vs counter graph -
> there used to be a bug in radio stack which would cause wrong association
> between incoming radio packets and SFD interrupts (timestamps are buffered
> in a FIFO in CC2420ReceiveP.nc). i haven't seen it in rc3 testing (about 20
> micaz motes running for an hour, single hop), but i'd just like to make sure
> before we start tweaking ftsp.

Maybe we are talking about two different counters?

- om_p