[Tinyos-devel] again about the baudrate issue for telos

Jorge Ortiz jortiz at cs.berkeley.edu
Tue Feb 17 08:42:28 PST 2009


If we're taking a poll, I vote to slow it down to 57600.  I've had trouble
with the higher speed with and without the serial forwarder.  At 57600 all
my serial-related reliability problems went away and the code I was working
with was significantly more stable.

Jorge


On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Andreas Köpke <koepke at tkn.tu-berlin.de>wrote:

> The bottom line of the discussion was very simple: many users seem to be
> happy
> with 57600 bit/s, especially if packets should travel from PC to mote: the
> telos node can not handle the interrupt load at higher baud rates. But as
> Phil
> pointed out: due to some long atomic sections in the TinyOS code, this is
> still no guarantee that the packet will arrive at the mote.
>
> In my experience the reliability of the connection from mote to PC is more
> a
> serial forwarder issue than anything else.
>
> Maybe we should take a poll on this.
>
> Best, Andreas
>
> Stephen Dawson-Haggerty wrote:
> > I don't know what other tests people have run, but at least in my
> > experience (all on linux) 115200 seems to have more dropped packets and
> be
> > less stable when you're sending quickly.  I haven't run any micro tests
> on
> > this, though; I'd be happy to if someone has one.  Perhaps the cygwin
> > serial is going to be equally unreliable at all rates...
> >
> > This mail thread seemed to end without resolution, so I'm also curious
> > about what happened...
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Philip Levis <pal at cs.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 2009, at 1:26 PM, Stephen Dawson-Haggerty wrote:
> > >
> > >  Everybody seems to have agreed that the default msp430 uart speed
> should
> > >
> > >> be 57600-- can somebody in core make the change?  It is definitely
> much
> > >> more reliable at the slower baud rate...
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Steve
> > >
> > > Hold on -- I think we went over this a long long time ago, and found
> out
> > > the problem was Cygwin, not TinyOS per se. Can someone summarize the
> > > tests that have been run (read/write load, host OS)? The mail thread
> > > doesn't seem to have much detail.
> > >
> > > Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinyos-devel mailing list
> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-devel/attachments/20090217/3ec76445/attachment.htm 


More information about the Tinyos-devel mailing list