[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Linrad] Re: Linrad network connections
- Subject: [Linrad] Re: Linrad network connections
- From: Joe Taylor <Princeton.EDU; joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:27:37 -0400
Thanks for letting me know of your continued interest in a
version of MAP65 optimized for 23 cm. I haven't forgotten
about it ... but it hasn't reached the top of my "to do"
list, yet. Too much going on around here, I guess ...
Have a good vacation!
-- Joe, K1JT
Doug G4DZU wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> Unfortunately the convention conflicts with our annual vacation, so I can't
> be there.
> Since we last spoke I've got a SDR-IQ and SDR-1000 which makes JT65 via the
> moon a lot easier.
> But still waiting, and hoping, for MAP65 being able to function with JT65C
> for 1296Mhz work.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
> Of Joe Taylor
> Sent: 24 July 2008 22:02
> To: linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Linrad] Linrad network connections
> Today I've been playing with the Linrad+MAP65 combination, in
> preparation for making some demonstrations at the EME Conference in
> I noticed something that may be interesting to others on this list.
> You'll recall that Linrad serves as a "front end" to MAP65. Digital
> data in the Linrad "timf2" format, taken after the first inverse FFT,
> are sent over an ethernet connection to MAP65. The default Linrad code
> does this transfer in the form of multicast UDP packets. Multicast
> means that there is one source of packets -- Linrad -- and in principle
> there may be many receivers. Many months ago I changed my working copy
> of Linrad (version 02.34) so that instead of multicast it uses
> "unicast". That is, data are sent explicitly to a single IP address,
> that of the machine running MAP65. This resulted in more reliable data
> transfer -- and also, even more importantly, it prevented swamping my
> local network with Linrad traffic so that my wife could not use the
> network to check her email, etc.
> Today I discovered another big advantage of sending unicast rather than
> multicast packets. On my network, at least, multicast transfers make
> *much* more RFI. Every packet transfer is clearly audible on an HF
> receiver tuned to the 30 m band. I don't hear anything at all when I
> switch to making transfers to a single IP address.
> -- 73, Joe, K1JT
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Linrad" group.
To post to this group, send email to linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to linrad-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/linrad?hl=en