Default scheduler.

tb.start(1024), with different values, etc, etc.

Most of the downstream blocks are stock GNU Radio blocks - a delay block
(max delay is 1 sample), logical operators, etc.  I guess I'll add some
printf debugging?

-John



On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Marcus Müller <marcus.muel...@ettus.com>
wrote:

>  Hi John,
> On 10.10.2014 19:33, John Malsbury wrote:
>
> Toward the end of the receive chain, there are a multitude of blocks that
> are used for Viterbi node synchronization. I've found that the number of
> blocks in series (3-5), combined with the low datarates at this point in
> the flowgraph, lead to latencies on the order of 1-2 minutes.  That is to
> say, once the node synchronization is accomplished, it takes 1-2 minutes to
> flush these blocks and get the fresh, good data through.  This is measured
> with function probes on the state of the sync process, and BERT analysis of
> the demodulator output [through TCP/IP socket].
>
>  I see you found the hidden interplanetary signal delay simulator.
> Congrats! Watch out for the red shift in downstream samples.
>
> No, seriously, that sounds like a lot.
> You are using 3.6.4.1 with the default scheduler, tpb?
>
>    - I've tried messing around with the output buffer size option in the
>    flowgraph, but this seems l to have a negligible impact.
>
>  That surprises me. How did you mess around? top_block->run(1024)?
>  Do your blocks really get called with smaller input item sizes? (do a
> little printf-debugging)
>
>    - I can write some custom blocks to reduce the overall block count, but
>    I have demonstrated that this provides a linear improvement, rather than
>    the two-order-magnitude improvement I need.
>
> Any general advice anyone can offer?  It feels like the right solution is
> to force small buffer sizes on the relevant blocks...
>
>  agreed. But still. That sounds *bad*. Are you sure none of the block
> demands a large input/output multiple?
>
>
> Greetings,
> Marcus
>
> -John
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing 
> listDiscuss-gnuradio@gnu.orghttps://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

Reply via email to