<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">If you could, put a sniffer on the ethernet segment. Or you could run tcpdump on one of the systems, though this would add more load to the systems under test. I’ve seen beagle boards and pis throttle ethernet using flow control, likely
due to system buffer issues. You could also see if flow control is enabled via mii-tool. If you see ethernet flow control packets on the segment, it is likely because the reader is not pulling packets out of the kernel fast enough so the receiver sends pause
frames.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Marc<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Ndn-interest <ndn-interest-bounces@lists.cs.ucla.edu> on behalf of Athreya Nagaraj via Ndn-interest <ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>Athreya Nagaraj <indiathreya92@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 4:45 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Davide Pesavento <davidepesa@gmail.com>, "nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu" <nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu>, "nfd-lib@lists.cs.ucla.edu" <nfd-lib@lists.cs.ucla.edu><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"Mohit P. Tahiliani" <tahiliani@nitk.edu.in>, ndn-interest <ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu>, Edward Lu via Ndn-lib <ndn-lib@lists.cs.ucla.edu><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Ndn-interest] Regarding RTT for ndncatchunks in raspberry pi<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Hello all <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">I have got an update and another question on this topic. I have reduced the test-bed size to two RPis. one being the producer and the other being the consumer. I figured out that by limiting the value of interest
pipeline to around 15, the RTT decreases substantially enough to match the performance of TCP (without reducing throughput). However, I'm curious as to why this might be happening and are there any changes I can do to the configuration to keep the interest
pipeline value over 100 and still have the same performance. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">My wild guess about this might be due to the buffer size. So regarding this, I have a question. When the ndn-cxx library writes the segment to the NIC buffer, will it write the contents of the segment or does it
store a pointer to it in the queue? It would be great if someone can point me towards where this is implemented in ndn-cxx library or NFD. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Thanks in advance<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Athreya H N <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:17 PM Athreya Nagaraj <<a href="mailto:indiathreya92@gmail.com">indiathreya92@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">No. I've not increased the interest lifetime. Is there any other possible cause of such a high max rtt value?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 10:07 PM, Davide Pesavento <<a href="mailto:davidepesa@gmail.com" target="_blank">davidepesa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Actually, ndncatchunks does not take RTT measurements for<br>
retransmitted segments. So a max RTT of more than 27 seconds looks<br>
very suspicious to me, unless you also increased the Interest<br>
lifetime.<br>
<br>
Davide<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:09 AM Lan Wang (lanwang) <<a href="mailto:lanwang@memphis.edu" target="_blank">lanwang@memphis.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I assume the min RTT 4.777ms is closer to the actual RTT. The RTT measurements from catchunks include the timeouts and retransmissions, so you can see the average and max are much larger.<br>
><br>
> Lan<br>
><br>
> On Dec 30, 2019, at 11:25 PM, Athreya Nagaraj <<a href="mailto:indiathreya92@gmail.com" target="_blank">indiathreya92@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Lan<br>
><br>
> Thank you for your response.<br>
><br>
> Please find below the output of ndncatchunks during one of the experiments-<br>
><br>
> All segments have been received.<br>
> Time elapsed: 55.1154 seconds<br>
> Segments received: 23832<br>
> Transferred size: 104858 kB<br>
> Goodput: 15.220085 Mbit/s<br>
> Congestion marks: 69 (caused 5 window decreases)<br>
> Timeouts: 414 (caused 5 window decreases)<br>
> Retransmitted segments: 347 (1.43513%), skipped: 67<br>
> RTT min/avg/max = 4.777/144.127/27253.940 ms<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:50 PM Lan Wang (lanwang) <<a href="mailto:lanwang@memphis.edu" target="_blank">lanwang@memphis.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> How did you measure the RTT during the catchunks transfer? Maybe you can send the catchunks output (or at least part of it)?<br>
>><br>
>> Lan<br>
>><br>
>> On Dec 29, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Athreya Nagaraj via Ndn-interest <<a href="mailto:ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu" target="_blank">ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi all<br>
>><br>
>> I have used the term 'bus topology', which is wrong. The topology I have used is 4 raspberry pi devices connected via 3 point-to-point links in a linear fashion. I've attached a representative topology diagram. I apologize for my mistake.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks and Regards<br>
>> Athreya H N<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 10:39 PM Athreya Nagaraj <<a href="mailto:indiathreya92@gmail.com" target="_blank">indiathreya92@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi all<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'm a student working on a testbed of NDN. The testbed consists of four raspberry pi connected in a bus topology. The two end devices act as producers and consumers for NDN data. The middle two devices act as routers. I use ndncatchunks to send a 100 MB
file through the testbed. I observe that the RTT for this is significantly more (around 10 times more) than that for an FTP application on the same testbed. The throughput is also lesser compared to FTP (around 20% lesser for NDN). I was wondering what could
cause this difference.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Also, another observation I made was that when I was testing the testbed setup with ndnping, the RTT was not so high.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I have also previously worked on similar topology with NDN and the machines used were desktop machines. In this case, NDN was better than FTP.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Any thoughts on what could be causing this?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks and Regards<br>
>>> Athreya H N<br>
>><br>
>> <Untitled Diagram.png>_______________________________________________<br>
>> Ndn-interest mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu" target="_blank">Ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest" target="_blank">
http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Ndn-interest mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu" target="_blank">Ndn-interest@lists.cs.ucla.edu</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest" target="_blank">
http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Regards,<br>
Athreya H N<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>