I am doing a project with 2 raspberry pi which work as servers and a laptop which is the client.
I have attached to each raspberry and usb microphone and using the Portaudio Library im capturing audio streaming
and send it back to the laptop through a tcp/ip connection.
The scope of this project is to locate sound sources and it works like this. I run a .c file on each raspberry which are
connected on the same LAN as with the PC laptop. When this program is running on both raspberryies i have a message
"Waiting connection for a client". The next thing to do is just to run the matlab file which will start the both raspberries
and record. I have managed to synchronize the raspberries to start in the same time through a simple condition like
do
{
sleep(0.01);
j = read(newsockfd, &start,1 );
} while (j==0);
so right before both raspberries have to start recording i pause them in order to finish the initialization commands and so on
and then i just send a character "start = 'k'" through my matlab program
t1,t2 are tcp connections
start = 'k';
fwrite (t1, k);
fwrite (t2, k);
from this point both raspberries open the PortAudio stream and call recordCallBack function.
When I run the application and clap, i still get a delay of 0.2s between them which causes
an error of 60 meters. I have also checked the execution time of the fwrite function but that might
save me about 0.05 seconds which will still lead to results far from reality.
This project is based on TDOA measurement and it is desired to have a delay under 0.01 seconds to get accuracy <1m.
I have heard that linux has some very accurate timers, and i was thinking that maybe i could use that to
clock the time inside the functions in the .c file. Anyway if you have any ideas of how i can measure the delay from
the point i send the character 'k' from matlab until the point where the audio stream is opened in microphone, or any
way how i could synchronize the 2 linux servers please help.
ps: both are raspberry 2 pi and connected through UTP cables so the processing and transmission rates should be the same
It looks like an interesting project but I think you underestimate the problem a little bit. The first issue is that you need to synchonize the two sensors. Given the speed of sound and if you want an accuracy of about 1m you need to synchronize them with about 1ms accuracy. You could try with the Network Time Protocol but I'm not sure you can reach this accuracy even with a master on the local network. Better synchronization can be achieved with PTP (over ethernet) or GPS if you can receive a GPS signal.
Then if you manage to achieve this, a first step could be to record a few hand claps on both raspberry pi, save the timestamp when you start recording on both and see if you actually obtain something significant. Maybe you will also need to use a microcontroller and a real-time operating system instead!
There are many ways to synchronise clocks. It could be in a system level or in application level.
System level tend to be easier because there are already tools to do the job. I don't recommend you doing PTP at this stage, as mentioned by Emilien, since it is quite complicated to make it work. Instead I would recommend you to use normal setup via the same NTP network on all machines.
Example of NTP setup:
Query the server with # ntpdate -q 0.rhel.pool.ntp.org
If it is running, setup your local clock with # ntpdate 0.rhel.pool.ntp.org 1.rhel.pool.ntp.org
OBS: # means root user (which most likely means that you will need to run the command with sudo), whilst $ means normal user.
Check all machines times with $ date +%k:%M:%S.%N which will return the clock down to a nanosecond resolution.
If that doesn't acheive the desired result then try the PTP aproach, or just synchronise all your devices when they connect to the master, where your master can normalise each independant clock. I will not go into details here.
Then you can send your audio data via TCP/IP (or perhaps UDP/IP to lower latency) like you mentioned before, but always send the timestamp of your slave machine associated to a audio frame using clock_gettime() function with CLOCK_REALTIME as the clk_id argument.
Related
I am using RN4871 with the latest firmware to turn on multiple LEDs via an I2C LED driver. I use gattlib C/C++ library to communicate ("write without response") with the RN4871 through my Ubuntu (20.04) system and I measure the latency of communication via an oscilloscope connected both to my computer and the RN4871.
I set the communication parameters on the Bluetooth device to 7.5 ms intervals with zero latency.
The problem is if I send commands from my computer in 500ms intervals, my communication latency is below 20ms which is just perfect for my application. However if my commands are 1 seconds or longer apart the latency rises up to 250ms! In my application I need extremely fast communications with minimal latency (below 40ms) and of course my commands are sent at variable intervals (can be even 10 seconds apart). I dont know where this issue comes from? Does it have to do with some sleeping process within the RN4871 that occurs when there is no data to transfer for more than 500ms or something else?
Thanks!
I am upgrading the processor in an embedded system for work. This is all in C, with no OS. Part of that upgrade includes migrating the processor-PC communications interface from IEEE-488 to USB. I finally got the USB firmware written, and have been testing it. It was going great until I tried to push through lots of data only to discover my USB connection is slower than the old IEEE-488 connection. I have the USB device enumerating as a CDC device with a baud rate of 115200 bps, but it is clear that I am not even reaching that throughput, and I thought that number was a dummy value that is a holdover from RS232 days, but I might be wrong. I control every aspect of this from the front end on the PC to the firmware on the embedded system.
I am assuming my issue is how I write to the USB on the embedded system side. Right now my USB_Write function is run in free time, and is just a while loop that writes one char to the USB port until the write buffer is empty. Is there a more efficient way to do this?
One of my concerns that I have, is that in the old system we had a board in the system dedicated to communications. The CPU would just write data across a bus to this board, and it would handle communications, which means that the CPU didn't have to waste free time handling the actual communications, but could offload the communications to a "co processor" (not a CPU but functionally the same here). Even with this concern though I figured I should be getting faster speeds given that full speed USB is on the order of MB/s while IEEE-488 is on the order of kB/s.
In short is this more likely a fundamental system constraint or a software optimization issue?
I thought that number was a dummy value that is a holdover from RS232 days, but I might be wrong.
You are correct, the baud number is a dummy value. If you create a CDC/RS232 adapter you would use this to configure your RS232 hardware, in this case it means nothing.
Is there a more efficient way to do this?
Absolutely! You should be writing chunks of data the same size as your USB endpoint for maximum transfer speed. Depending on the device you are using your stream of single byte writes may be gathered into a single packet before sending but from my experience (and your results) this is unlikely.
Depending on your latency requirements you can stick in a circular buffer and only issue data from it to the USB_Write function when you have ENDPOINT_SZ number of byes. If this results in excessive latency or your interface is not always communicating you may want to implement Nagles algorithm.
One of my concerns that I have, is that in the old system we had a board in the system dedicated to communications.
The NXP part you mentioned in the comments is without a doubt fast enough to saturate a USB full speed connection.
In short is this more likely a fundamental system constraint or a software optimization issue?
I would consider this a software design issue rather than an optimisation one, but no, it is unlikely you are fundamentally stuck.
Do take care to figure out exactly what sort of USB connection you are using though, if you are using USB 1.1 you will be limited to 64KB/s, USB 2.0 full speed you will be limited to 512KB/s. If you require higher throughput you should migrate to using a separate bulk endpoint for the data transfer.
I would recommend reading through the USB made simple site to get a good overview of the various USB speeds and their capabilities.
One final issue, vendor CDC libraries are not always the best and implementations of the CDC standard can vary. You can theoretically get more data through a CDC endpoint by using larger endpoints, I have seen this bring host side drivers to their knees though - if you go this route create a custom driver using bulk endpoints.
Try testing your device on multiple systems, you may find you get quite different results between windows and linux. This will help to point the finger at the host end.
And finally, make sure you are doing big buffered reads on the host side, USB will stop transferring data once the host side buffers are full.
this might be a stupid question,
I was debugging a USB storage device on an ARM-CortexM4 platform (STM32F4 series) which runs embedded Linux. The ARM is working as USB host, and tries to communicate with a thumb drive in USB full speed (12Mb/s).
Now here is the problem. After successful enumeration and several SCSI commands thru BULK transfers, the capacity and everything can be read correctly. However, after about 15 seconds when I try to send these SCSI commands again (under same condition), the USB host controller just returns 'Transaction Error', which looks like the device is not responding to BULK transfers anymore (not ACKing) and the host controller times out. The question is, is there any timeout mechanism for USB mass-storage class or SCSI system such that, after a timeout the system must be re-enumerated or re-probed, otherwise it won't respond anymore?
I understand this might be due to a stupid error in my program, or due to some limitations on the specific hardware. However when I used usbmon module in Linux on a PC to capture the transfers on the very same thumb drive, I can see the operating system actually sends a sequence probing command (Read-max-Lun followed by Test-unit-ready) every 5 sec, which could be the reason why the thumb drive doesn't fail on my PC.
Thanks! I'm looking forward to any replies.
I think you're on the right track with the Test Unit Ready commands.. I am in the middle of writing a mass storage device driver for an embedded device and When testing on OS X, after the initial SCSI queries, my device receives Test Unit Ready command about once every second when no other activity is occurring. Since your post is quite old, I recommend you post your own solution if you've since solved your problem.
Otherwise try adding periodic test unit ready commands from the host side when there is no other activity.. You could set and activate a timer whenever USB activity is occurring. If the timer fires, u can send a Test unit ready command.. Rinse repeat.
edit:
I am essentially attempting to utilize the NTP code from section 5 of RFC 1129 from the command-line. Simply setting the clock, or even making an adjtime call is insufficient. I'd like to utilize the pre-existing NTP code for properly synchronizing clocks, but without the network part.
I have a system that cannot reach the internet, but has access to a high-precision clock. I would like to periodically poll that high precision clock for the time, and utilize the control system in NTP to synchronize the system clock.
Does anyone know how to feed input to NTP without faking an NTP server?
Ideally, I would be able to feed it the current time on the command-line, and have it use that as another point for synchronizing the clock.
bash ~ $ something 1416899507
Looking into refclock_nmea.c it appears as though a simple mechanism would be to feed ntpd time values from GPS NMEA sentences. Alternatively, it doesn't appear to be that difficult to just implement a custom refclock driver. David Mills has a tutorial available: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/howto.html
I'm currently in an early phase of developing a mobile app that depends heavily on timestamps.
A master device is connected to several client devices over wifi, and issues various commands to these. When the client devices receive commands, they need to mark the (relative) timestamp when the command is executed.
While all this is simple enough, I haven't come up with a solution for how to deal with clock differences. For example, the master device might have its clock at 12:01:01, while client A is on 12:01:02 and client B on 12:01:03. Mostly, I can expect these devices to be set to similar times, as they sync over NTP. However, the nature of my application requires ms precision, so therefore I would like to safeguard against discrepancies.
A short delay between issuing a command and executing the command is fine, however an incorrect timestamp of when that command was executed is not.
So far, I'm thinking of something along the line of having the master device ping each client device to determine transaction time, and then request the client to send their "local" time. Based on this, I can calculate what the time difference is between master and client. Once the time difference is know, the client can adapt its timestamps accordingly.
I am not very familiar with networking though, and I suspect that pinging a device is not a very reliable method of establishing transaction time, since a lot factors apply, and latency may change.
I assume that there are many real-world settings where such timing issues are important, and thus there should be solutions already. Does anyone know of any? Is it enough to simply divide response time by two?
Thanks!
One heads over to RFC 5905 for NTPv4 and learns from the folks who really have put their noodle to this problem and how to figure it out.
Or you simply make sure NTP is working properly on your servers so that you don't have this problem in the first place.