Ibr-dtn

Download

ibr-dtn@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de

May 2015

2 participants
2 discussions

Re: [ibr-dtn] Ibr-dtn Digest, Vol 58, Issue 1
by abu fahruddin 04 May '15

04 May '15

hi Sebastian, I had read that research report and use as my reference, but I see that research by using simulator only and my research in the real condition. Anyway I also use wireshark to analysis IBR-DTN throughput but the result was not real time condition of course it is different with iperf. I don't know what the iperf can use to analysis IBR-DTN also???? So far I don't have any reference the dtnperf can use on IBR-DTN and I know this software only for DTN2. If you have any reference please share to me. Best regards On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 5:00 PM, <ibr-dtn-request(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote: > Send Ibr-dtn mailing list submissions to > ibr-dtn(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/listinfo/ibr-dtn > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ibr-dtn-request(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ibr-dtn-owner(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Ibr-dtn digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: throughput IBR-DTN (Sebastian Schildt) > 2. Re: Bundle Queueing (Johannes Morgenroth) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:39:09 +0200 > From: Sebastian Schildt <schildt(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> > To: ibr-dtn <ibr-dtn(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> > Subject: Re: [ibr-dtn] throughput IBR-DTN > Message-ID: <DC1EE5A8-5993-4341-A1DD-73D541EF28C9(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > If you want the goodput, that is you want to find out how many user data > is transmitted, you can just create some test-data, and send it. For > example create a 100MB file and send it 100 times using dtnsend/dtnrecv > and then using netcat for TCP/IP and measure the time needed. > > > However, interpretation of results is not that easy, as for example small > files lead to different performance: In the Bundle Protocol, because there > is some additional processing overhead per Bundle and also TCP itself will > perform differently due to slow-start. For DTN Storage configuration can > have a large impact too. > > Just look at the (probably confusing) graphs here: > http://jenkins.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/dtnperf/ > Form top to bottom every graph uses larger bundle sizes. Inside each graph > configuration of storage or security is varied. The point is, on the same > machine for very small bundles you get tenths of kilobits or 900 Mbit for > large bundles when operating in-memory…. > > > Some information what can be measured, and what things influence > performance can be seen in this older technical report: > https://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/papers/poettner-tr201108.pdf > However the IBR-DTN/DTN-2 and ION versions used in that paper are outdated > now, so the actual performance numbers might be different > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > On 28 Apr 2015, at 02:20, abu fahruddin <abu.fahruddin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I just want to compare throughput IBT-DTN and TCP IP. > > Could you help me the correct tools. Currently I use wireshark but I > still confiuse to analysis wireshark for live striming data. > > > > > > -- > > !! This message is brought to you via the `ibr-dtn' mailing list. > > !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe or > adjust > > !! your settings, send a mail message to < > ibr-dtn-request(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> > > !! or look at https://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/listinfo/ibr-dtn. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 09:33:57 +0200 > From: Johannes Morgenroth <morgenroth(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> > To: ibr-dtn(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de > Subject: Re: [ibr-dtn] Bundle Queueing > Message-ID: <55432C65.6020809(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hello Alex, > > there is no 'specific' reason for that. It is more a historical > engineering decision. The memory-based storage was the first which got > implemented. In the later development, the disk-based variant was > implemented to support devices with small amounts of memory. To achieve > a high performance, the disk operations are processed within a separate > thread. In the memory-based implementation this is not necessary, > because there are no long blocking operations. > > Kind regards, > Johannes > > Am 20.04.2015 um 10:24 schrieb Alex van der Linden: > > Currently I'm looking into the bundle queuing of IBR-DTN. In the code of > > IBR-DTN_1.0.1 I've found different queue implementations for HDD > > (SimpleBundleStorage) and memory (MemoryBundleStorage). i.e. In the > > SimpleBundleStorage _priority_index queue is encapsulated by the class > > MetaStorage and in the MemoryBundleStorage it is not. Is there a > > specific reason for the difference in the context of memory management? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > -- > !! This message is brought to you via the `ibr-dtn' mailing list. > !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe or > adjust > !! your settings, send a mail message to <ibr-dtn-request(a)ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> > !! or look at https://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/listinfo/ibr-dtn. > > ------------------------------ > > End of Ibr-dtn Digest, Vol 58, Issue 1 > ************************************** >

1 0

Bundle Queueing
by Alex van der Linden 01 May '15

01 May '15

Dear IBR-DTN Community, Currently I'm looking into the bundle queuing of IBR-DTN. In the code of IBR-DTN_1.0.1 I've found different queue implementations for HDD (SimpleBundleStorage) and memory (MemoryBundleStorage). i.e. In the SimpleBundleStorage _priority_index queue is encapsulated by the class MetaStorage and in the MemoryBundleStorage it is not. Is there a specific reason for the difference in the context of memory management? Best Regards, Alex van der Linden

2 1