The site is read-only. Please transition to use Robotics Stack Exchange
| ROS Resources: Documentation | Support | Discussion Forum | Index | Service Status | ros @ Robotics Stack Exchange |
 | 1 | initial version |
So that's indeed all megabit/sec, not megabyte/sec.
Maximum theoretical bw between your two hosts over wireless would then be about 7 MB/sec, which is about 10x lower than what you stated earlier, and over 3x less than what would be needed to transmit just the depth images (at 24.5 MB/sec).
Your iperf results suggest the actual attainable bw less than half the max, at 34 mbit/sec, or just about 3.5 MB/sec. That would reduce available bw for depth images by another factor of 2.
Still not claiming it's just bw that's the issue here, but it's likely a big factor.
| | 2 | No.2 Revision |
So that's indeed all megabit/sec, not megabyte/sec.
Maximum theoretical bw between your two hosts over wireless would then be about 7 MB/sec, which is about 10x lower than what you stated earlier, and over 3x less than what would be needed to transmit just the depth images (at 24.5 MB/sec).MB/sec), if everything worked perfectly.
Your iperf results suggest the actual attainable bw less than half the max, at 34 mbit/sec, or just about 3.5 MB/sec. That would reduce available bw for depth images by another factor of 2.
Still not claiming it's just bw that's the issue here, but it's likely a big factor.
| | 3 | No.3 Revision |
So that's indeed all megabit/sec, not megabyte/sec.
Maximum theoretical bw between your two hosts over wireless would then be about 7 MB/sec, which is about 10x lower than what you stated earlier, and over 3x less than what would be needed to transmit just the depth images (at 24.5 MB/sec), if everything worked perfectly.
Your iperf results suggest the actual attainable bw is less than half the max, at 34 mbit/sec, or just about 3.5 MB/sec. MB/sec (that could make sense for a half-duplex medium). That would reduce available bw for depth images by another factor of 2.
Still not claiming it's just bw that's the issue here, but it's likely a big factor.
What brand/model wireless nic and router do you have? You could check whether it's capable of wider channels to increase available bw.
| | 4 | No.4 Revision |
Just run iperf in both directions from Robot to PC and back over 60 secs combined average about 34.3Mbits/sec.
iwconfig output:
wlx74da38733b6f IEEE 802.11 ESSID:"NeonStar2" Mode:Managed Frequency:2.422 GHz Access Point: 00:1D:AA:5E:85:A8 Bit Rate=72.2 Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm Retry short limit:7 RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr:off Power Management:off Link Quality=70/70 Signal level=-33 dBm Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0 Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
So that's indeed all megabit/sec, not megabyte/sec.
Maximum theoretical bw between your two hosts over wireless would then be about 7 MB/sec, which is about 10x lower than what you stated earlier, and over 3x less than what would be needed to transmit just the depth images (at 24.5 MB/sec), if everything worked perfectly.
Your iperf results suggest the actual attainable bw is less than half the max, at 34 mbit/sec, or just about 3.5 MB/sec (that could make sense for a half-duplex medium). That would reduce available bw for depth images by another factor of 2.
Still not claiming it's just bw that's the issue here, but it's likely a big factor.
What brand/model wireless nic and router do you have? You could check whether it's capable of wider channels to increase available bw.
ROS Answers is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.
