Hello Harald, Oliver, On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 08:43:42PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > > > On 06.01.26 17:50, Harald Mommer wrote: > > > With the plain 'cangen' you are not really flooding the interface, since > > > you are only sending a random CAN frame every 200ms. The only way I can > > > reproduce this behaviour in a consistent manner is running from the host: > > > > > > while true; do cansend vcan0 134#00; done > > > > > > which seems to generate the maximum amount of traffic. > > > > > > This is not of course a realistic bus load, but is leading the system > > > (at least on my setup) to a corner case somewhere. > > > > I have no idea how long the shell needs for a loop, always used cangen -g 0 > > to stress the setup which is most probably faster than the shell > > interpreter, and sometimes did this for both directions (RX and TX). > > > > Full load is a realistic setup. And even if it was not, if something > > stopped working or worse crashes torturing the setup this was a problem. > > > > Yes. cangen -g 0 -i <interface> creates full load - even on real CAN > interfaces. You can also generate fixed content if you want to omit the > generation of randomized content. 'cangen -?' prints a help text. >
I agree with both of you - I was simply arguing that a plain 'cangen' with no parameters is not really loading the interface. For some reason, I was only able to trigger the unwanted behavior with cansend in a while loop and not with cangen -g 0, even with fixed ID and payload. However, I suspect the issue is a matter of timing and coincidences rather than load level. > Best regards, > Oliver > Regards, Francesco
