[Olsr-users] olsrd bandwidth vs static routes

[Joseph Chop]

I have two N800s configured for an ad-hoc network.  One address is
192.168.0.1 and the other address is 192.168.0.2.  In the case of static
routes, I simply enter the command on host 192.168.0.1:

ip route add 192.168.0.2 dev wlan0

similarily I enter the following command 192.168.0.2:

ip route add 192.168.0.1 dev wlan0

I transfer using iperf by typing
iperf -s on one host and
iperf --t 60 -c 192.168.0.1 on the other host

The nodes are about two feet from each other.  I've repeated the tests
several times, and even tested using ttcp and nuttcp to confirm the results.

When testing olsrd, I just start olsrd with the default settings and issue
the same iperf commands.  Everytime olsrd is consistentely faster.  My
question is how can it be faster especially when olsrd is also sending
control messages.  `

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:15 AM, ZioPRoTo (Saverio Proto) <
(spam-protected)> wrote:

> > I'm currently investigating the bandwidth olsr achieves.  Oddly, its
> better
> > than static routes.  Any reason why?
> >
> > I'm running olsrd on two N800s (running Maemo Linux), with default
> > settings.  I've measured with a couple of tools (iperf, ttcp, nuttcp).
> So
> > with static routes, ie issuing commands like ip route add 192.168.0.1 dev
> > wlan0, I get a transfer rate of about 3 Mbps. However when I run the test
> > with olsrd running I get almost 4 Mbps.  For some reason running the
> daemon
> > speeds up transfer, even though its not really choosing a better route
> > (theres only one).
>
> We need the topology of your testbed setup to understand what you are
> saying. Please provide details to repeat the experiment.
>
> Saverio
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.olsr.org/pipermail/olsr-users/attachments/20091125/e5ffd239/attachment.html>