[Tinyos-devel] [Tinyos Core WG] TEP105: LowPowerListening Duty Cycles

[Kevin Klues]

I know I've never used the DutyCycle functions.  I always rely on the
interval based ones.

Kevin

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM, David Moss <dmm at rincon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is anyone using the setLocalDutyCycle() and setRxDutyCycle() functions in
> the LowPowerListening interface?
>
>
>
> I see lots of problems with all duty cycle related functions in the
> LowPowerListening interface:
>
>
>
> Duty cycle functions are very inaccurate and difficult to maintain because
> they require manual measurements to be performed on a node.
> The correct value may even vary from platform to platform, depending on the
> implementation. In some cases, like hardware-driven Wake-on Radio, it is
> difficult to specify a duty cycle with any degree of accuracy.
> Any changes to the radio stack, including unrelated areas like
> Acknowledgments, will affect the duty cycle and require the developer to
> make measurements again.
> The limitations on the duty cycle percentage only let you get down to 0.01%.
> With the ever-increasing efficiency of receive checks, 0.01% is not be
> enough.  In some implementations, I'm able to achieve numbers like 0.0001%
> duty cycle or lower, which makes all duty cycle functions obsolete.
>
>
>
> Given these on-going problems with setLocalDutyCycle() and setRxDutyCycle(),
> it is my opinion that the best thing we can do is @deprecate these functions
> for now, leave them available for the next release as we ease out of them,
> remove them from TEP105, and avoid using them at all costs.
>
>
>
> The setRxSleepInterval() and setLocalSleepInterval() functions are much more
> reliable, predictable, cross-platform compatible, and always correct.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> -David
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Tinyos-2.0wg mailing list
>  Tinyos-2.0wg at millennium.berkeley.edu
>  https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-2.0wg
>



-- 
~Kevin