[Ndn-interest] Regarding RTT for ndncatchunks in raspberry pi

Athreya Nagaraj indiathreya92 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 30 21:25:20 PST 2019

Hi Lan

Thank you for your response.

Please find below the output of ndncatchunks during one of the experiments-

All segments have been received.
Time elapsed: 55.1154 seconds
Segments received: 23832
Transferred size: 104858 kB
Goodput: 15.220085 Mbit/s
Congestion marks: 69 (caused 5 window decreases)
Timeouts: 414 (caused 5 window decreases)
Retransmitted segments: 347 (1.43513%), skipped: 67
RTT min/avg/max = 4.777/144.127/27253.940 ms

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:50 PM Lan Wang (lanwang) <lanwang at memphis.edu>

> How did you measure the RTT during the catchunks transfer?  Maybe you can
> send the catchunks output (or at least part of it)?
> Lan
> On Dec 29, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Athreya Nagaraj via Ndn-interest <
> ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> Hi all
> 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.
> Thanks and Regards
> Athreya H N
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 10:39 PM Athreya Nagaraj <indiathreya92 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi all
>> 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.
>> Also, another observation I made was that when I was testing the testbed
>> setup with ndnping, the RTT was not so high.
>> 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.
>> Any thoughts on what could be causing this?
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Athreya H N
> <Untitled Diagram.png>_______________________________________________
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndn-interest/attachments/20191231/ba9a6ef7/attachment.html>

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list