[Ham-80211] Aerocomm Modems: PPP Experiment
Guillaume Filion gfk at logidac.comTue Oct 25 01:09:16 UTC 2005
- Previous message: [Ham-80211] Re: FCC Licensees in 2400-2483 MHz?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi all, I'm interested in setting up a 900 MHz link using the Aerocomm modems, you may remember that I did a small experiment a couple weeks ago to estimate the throughput that I would get with real-time compression: ===== That gives between 36% and 38% compression. For a 78 Kbps link that would raise it to about 121 Kbps for plain text. ===== I did another experiment with PPP this time, I set up a NSLU2 single board computer (slug) and linked it to a PC running linux using a cross over serial cable. I then setup a PPP connection and did some benchmarks, with impressing (impossible?) results. You can read the whole article online at: http://guillaume.filion.org/blog/archives/2005/10/connexlink_900_1.php and here's the part that puzzles me: ===== [...]I then followed the instructions of the Serial-Laplink-HOWTO. I was surprised to see how easy it was, I just copied and pasted the code example, changed ppp_laplink_server to ali's IP address and ppp_laplink_client to the IP address that I wanted to give to the slug via the PPP link (different than the one it got from the ethernet). Voilà! It worked on the first try! ----- root at ali:/etc/ppp# /usr/sbin/pppd /dev/ttyS1 nodetach Using interface ppp0 Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS1 PAP peer authentication succeeded for gfk Deflate (15) compression enabled found interface eth0 for proxy arp local IP address 192.168.0.2 remote IP address 192.168.0.43 ----- root at slug:/etc/ppp# /usr/sbin/pppd /dev/ttyUSB0 nodetach Using interface ppp0 Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyUSB0 Remote message: Login ok PAP authentication succeeded Deflate (15) compression enabled local IP address 192.168.0.43 remote IP address 192.168.0.2 ----- Benchmarks I tested the reliability of the link with a 15 minutes ping flood: ----- gfk at ali:~$ sudo ping -f 192.168.0.43 PING 192.168.0.43 (192.168.0.43) 56(84) bytes of data. . --- 192.168.0.43 ping statistics --- 74602 packets transmitted, 74601 received, 0% packet loss, time 997772ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 15.099/19.923/39.925/0.239 ms, pipe 3, ipg/ewma 13.374/19.929 ms ----- Then I measured the bandwidth with iperf. Note that those speeds are all half-duplex. ----- gfk at ali:~$ iperf -c 192.168.0.43 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.0.43, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 5] local 192.168.0.2 port 43315 connected with 192.168.0.43 port 5001 [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 3.65 MBytes 3.05 Mbits/sec I was a bit stunned by these results -- getting 3 Mbps on a 0.12 Mbps link is a little too good to be true -- but I realised that iperf must have been using really simple data for its test. And everyone should know that simple data compresses really well. When using "real world" data or even compressed data, I get more realistic figures: ----- gfk at ali:~$ iperf -c 192.168.0.43 -F maildir.tar ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.0.43, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 6] local 192.168.0.2 port 43312 connected with 192.168.0.43 port 5001 [ 6] 0.0-10.4 sec 400 KBytes 314 Kbits/sec gfk at ali:~$ iperf -c 192.168.0.43 -F maildir-best.tar.gz ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.0.43, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 6] local 192.168.0.2 port 43310 connected with 192.168.0.43 port 5001 [ 6] 0.0-11.5 sec 136 KBytes 96.9 Kbits/sec ----- These numbers are still very impressing, in my planning I estimated that I would get about 37% of speed gain, but these "real world" results give around 224% of speed gain. If anyone has an explanation, I'd be happy to hear it. ===== So, if anyone has an explanation, I'd be happy to hear it! :-) Thanks and 73, GFK's -- Guillaume Filion, ing. jr Logidac Tech., Beaumont, Québec, Canada - http://logidac.com/ PGP Key and more: http://guillaume.filion.org/
- Previous message: [Ham-80211] Re: FCC Licensees in 2400-2483 MHz?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the ham-80211 mailing list
