Throughput unfairness and effect of CCAMode1Threshold in simple terms

97 views
Skip to first unread message

Mahesh

unread,
Feb 23, 2018, 2:23:18 AM2/23/18
to ns-3-users
Hi all,

I am running a simulation in which I have a static network of wifi nodes connected through p2p to a csma backhaul on ns-3.26. I am facing a significant difference in throughput among various flows where wifi nodes are sending cbr traffic to csma backhaul. 

Also, when I change the CCAMode1Threshold, the results are changing a lot. How to choose CCAMode1Threshold and why is there a big difference in throughput among various flows? Each flow is started with a difference of 1 second.

The same script is giving the following error on ns3-dev:
msg="Failed to bind socket", file=../src/applications/model/packet-sink.cc, line=119
terminate called without an active exception

Why is this happening? Looking forward to your kind suggestions. Script is attached herewith along with a sample output where 3 flows are simulated.

Thanks,
Mahesh
isotropic-hybrid-16-nodes-dev.cc
4sources-1mcs-40mhz-30mbps-200s--40cmt.txt

Mahesh

unread,
Feb 24, 2018, 9:28:36 AM2/24/18
to ns-3-users
Kindly reply.

Tommaso Pecorella

unread,
Mar 2, 2018, 11:56:49 PM3/2/18
to ns-3-users
Read the posting guidelines. Soliciting a reply is dramatically rude.

T.

On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:28:36 AM UTC-6, Mahesh wrote:
Kindly reply.

Tommaso Pecorella

unread,
Mar 3, 2018, 12:01:18 AM3/3/18
to ns-3-users
Moreover:

1) Please fix your own coding mistakes, I can't even compile your code:

../scratch/isotropic-hybrid-16-nodes-dev.cc:495:20: error: variable-sized object may not be initialized

  int source_nodes[m_numNodes] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15};

                   ^~~~~~~~~~

1 error generated.


2)
      ac_sinkTcp[i] = sinkTcp.Install (nc_csma.Get(1));

Installing an application TWICE or more on the same node, and asking the applications to use the same port is definitely a bad idea. I'm not surprised that you get run-time errors.

T.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages