On 11/14/06, Eric Blossom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:04:46PM -0800, Thomas Schmid wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I did new test today, and you were right. I had a lot of underrun.
> Therefore, I increase fusb_nbloccks to 8 and fusb_block_size to 2048.
> Even with this setting, I
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:04:46PM -0800, Thomas Schmid wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I did new test today, and you were right. I had a lot of underrun.
> Therefore, I increase fusb_nbloccks to 8 and fusb_block_size to 2048.
> Even with this setting, I got some underruns, but they were not often
> at all.
Hi Eric,
I did new test today, and you were right. I had a lot of underrun.
Therefore, I increase fusb_nbloccks to 8 and fusb_block_size to 2048.
Even with this setting, I got some underruns, but they were not often
at all. Here are the new numbers (for the code in trunk):
Decimation, Nice, Real_
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 10:19:22PM -0800, Thomas Schmid wrote:
>
> No, I do not log the received data into a file. I record the wave
> forms on the oscilloscope and do a post processing on them in octave.
>
> >> First of all, I don't understand why we have such a high delay.
> >> Shouldn't it be
Hi Eric,
On 11/13/06, Eric Blossom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 05:03:17PM -0800, Thomas Schmid wrote:
> I am currently investigating different USRP delays. Some of them I can
> explain, others not. For example, I see an average delay of 6.2ms
> while receiving data from th
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 05:03:17PM -0800, Thomas Schmid wrote:
> I am currently investigating different USRP delays. Some of them I can
> explain, others not. For example, I see an average delay of 6.2ms
> while receiving data from the USRP at a sample rate of 8MHz (short
> real samples, i.e. I am
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 12:10, Thomas Schmid wrote:
> I use the outb command to change the parallel port. From what I read,
> that command should have a delay of around 1 \mu s, not more. I am not
Hmm, well you probably will incur a few microseconds because you need to talk
to the legacy hard
I use the outb command to change the parallel port. From what I read,
that command should have a delay of around 1 \mu s, not more. I am not
sure about the context switches, but I am almost sure that this is not
the problem. I don't run anything else on the machine (i.e., no other
heavy load proce
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 11:33, Thomas Schmid wrote:
> First of all, I don't understand why we have such a high delay.
> Shouldn't it be more in the hundreds of /mu s instead of in the ms
> range? Second, why is the delay shorter for decimation 64, and again
> larger for a decimation of 256?
Ho
I am currently investigating different USRP delays. Some of them I can
explain, others not. For example, I see an average delay of 6.2ms
while receiving data from the USRP at a sample rate of 8MHz (short
real samples, i.e. I am using the usrp.source_s).
Here is my setup:
- I have a function genera
10 matches
Mail list logo
