Fw: [linrad] Second operator

[sigurd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also would think the broadcasting of data from the primary computer to one
or more computers by using  "sockets", as suggested by another e-mail, would
be a good approach.  It would allow more flexability in how the secondary
computer might process the A/D data.

73.... Sigurd KJ1K

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sigurd Kimpel" <sigurd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [linrad] Second operator


> I am not sure I understand what you are doing, but it sounds interesting.
> Am I correct in assuming that the primary computer is doing the A/D
> conversion and "most" of the digital signal processing and the secondary
> computer is being used primarily for a display?   For example, could I use
> my 1.8 GHz P4 computer for the primary computer, w/o any display, and use
my
> 255 MHz PII laptop for a display?  this might be attractive for a
microwave
> rover.
>
> tnx,
>
> Sigurd, KJ1K
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leif Åsbrink" <leif.asbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Linrad" <linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 6:29 PM
> Subject: [linrad] Second operator
>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > To allow for a second operator on the same radio hardware I
> > have added a network to Linrad. This seems to work fine if
> > computers are fast enough.
> >
> > I have a primary computer, 600MHz PIII and a second computer
> > 200MHz Pentium MMX. I can run with a sampling speed of up
> > to 32 kHz for two channels when sending compleded transforms
> > over the network. The slow computer seems to spend most of its
> > time with network overhead.
> >
> > I have started from the network routines of W3SZ, Roger, and I
> > have no previous experience in networks whatsoever.
> >
> > The network parameters are AF_INET and SOCK_STREAM which I think
> > means Internet protocol (???)
> >
> > The primary computer only sends data blindly while the second
> > computer just receives data. There is some "magic" going on
> > in the protocol that makes the other computer exit from linrad
> > with a message "broken pipe" if one exits from Linrad in the
> > other computer.
> >
> > Are there better protocols? There is no need for the primary
> > computer to know if the listener is there. Would also be fine
> > with a protocol that would allow any number of secondary
> > computers in parallel.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Leif
> >
> >
> >
> >
>




LINRADDARNIL