[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR)
From: |
Philip Balister |
Subject: |
Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR) |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:56:00 -0400 |
If I get bored (not likely), I would like to try isosynchronous
transfers over USB. My thinking is a dropped packet is no worse than a
burst of interference. For radio links, the higher level protocols are
already handling error detection and correction.
Philip
On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 09:32 -0500, David Carr wrote:
> Lets say that we use UDP/RTP. Most non connection-oriented protocols
> involve an application layer connection control scheme. For TX, each
> packet has a number and the device NACKs a packet if it is received when
> the buffer is full. The host then retries NACKed packets at a given
> interval and gives up if not successful after N tries. This is still a
> lot lighter than a TCP stack (and could be done in an FPGA).
>
> -David Carr
>
> Eric Blossom wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 02:31:41PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:52:33PM -0700, Eric Blossom wrote:
> >>
> >>I don't really understand why you would want flow control.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Think about the transmit path.
> >
> >Simplest possible test case:
> >
> > Software sine wave generator talking to transmit hardware. There is
> > nothing throttling the signal generator. It will produce an
> > infinite amount of data as quickly as it can. You want the DAC
> > clock to control pacing. Any kind of host based pacing will lead to
> > trouble (under or overruns).
> >
> >Eric
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> >address@hidden
> >http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), (continued)
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), John Gilmore, 2005/06/21
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Harald Welte, 2005/06/22
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Marcus D. Leech, 2005/06/22
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Stephane Fillod, 2005/06/22
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), David Young, 2005/06/22
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Eric Blossom, 2005/06/23
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Harald Welte, 2005/06/24
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Eric Blossom, 2005/06/24
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), David Carr, 2005/06/24
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR),
Philip Balister <=
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), John Gilmore, 2005/06/24
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Lamar Owen, 2005/06/25
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Marcus D. Leech, 2005/06/25
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Eric Blossom, 2005/06/26
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Eric Blossom, 2005/06/26
- [Discuss-gnuradio] FIR filter in fsk_tx.py, Sachi, 2005/06/26
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] FIR filter in fsk_tx.py, Sachi, 2005/06/27
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] FIR filter in fsk_tx.py, Matt Ettus, 2005/06/29
- Re: GigE (was Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] DSP based SDR), Stephane Fillod, 2005/06/24