[Babel-users] failing over faster?

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek
<jch at pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>> A good question would be, what would the ideal time between tests be
>> for the network to stablize? 3 minutes? At least in one series I'd
>> started tests back to back, and didn't kick in the drop link stuff at
>> the right times.
>
>   SOURCE_GC_TIME is 200
>   hold time is 3.5 * update_interval
>
> so in order to make sure that all stale data has been flushed, you should
> keep a silent time of
>
>   MAX(SOURCE_GC_TIME, 3.5 * update_interval)
>
> Note that's update_interval, not hello_interval.

OK. Basically you want two forms of experiment from me -

Overall topology, 3 routers, 2 ethernet, 1 wifi. Fail over in
different, regular, documented ways, and see what happens.

1) with and without -l
2) with and without the patch to check-interfaces
    (can't I just put in a debug statement to see if the pi/etc are
sending the message?)
    I note there are two places where the polling interval is set in the code.

I note that also a target in these earlier tests was the linksys
1200ac, which has some major issues at a gigE. In this quick failover
test I'd gone from the c2 (100mbit), to the apu2 - gigE, and... wow...
explain THIS!

http://blog.cerowrt.org/flent/failing_over_faster/linksys_1200_majorly_headblocking.svg

I am going to switch to another box as a target, finish solidifying
the overall testbed, and then go heads down into the ath10k driver.

I hope by documenting some of the headaches I've had in getting these
boxes up and working at all, others will benefit.

http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/some_hackerboards_for_wifi/

>
> -- Juliusz
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org