Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Frequent store and forward uplinks if offline #66

Closed
benninger-mm opened this issue Jun 14, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed

Frequent store and forward uplinks if offline #66

benninger-mm opened this issue Jun 14, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@benninger-mm
Copy link

benninger-mm commented Jun 14, 2024

I'm implementing a tracking device which will be moved in and out of the range of a LoRaWAN gateway multiple times a day. I'm using the store and forward service to ensure that the locations are being forwarded at a later point in time if the device was out of range.

During a couple of tests I noticed that the service retransmitted the first unacked packet 40 to 50 times during the first hour of being offline. This is considered a lot, especially, since this happens multiple times a day for my use case. Furthermore, if the function smtc_modem_set_nb_trans is used to set nb_trans to 3 (as suggested here) each packet is repeated 3 times which results in 120 to 150 LoRaWAN uplinks being transmitted during the first hour of being offline.

I traced back the issue to the function store_and_forward_flash_compute_next_delay_s which is implemented here. Unfortunately, this function cannot be altered, except for STORE_AND_FORWARD_DELAY_MAX_S.

The current implementation of store_and_forward_flash_compute_next_delay_s is rather simple. A random number between 1 and 5 is multiplied with the number of unacked packets (sending_try_cpt) to get the delay in seconds. The random numbers are currently centered around 3. Allowing a user to set this center manually via a define would already help in my case. I would prefer the random numbers to be centered around 600 seconds (10 minutes) since in that case the delay increases much faster. Alternatively, you could adjust the implementation such that a user can provide a custom implementation of the store_and_forward_flash_compute_next_delay_s function.

@opeyrard
Copy link

Hi,
We will improve this in the next release.
Feel free to make a proposal.
Many thanks,

@benninger-mm
Copy link
Author

Ok, thanks for the information.

I adjusted the store_and_forward_flash_compute_next_delay_s such that it uses an exponential backoff. This works fine for my application:

static uint32_t store_and_forward_flash_compute_next_delay_s( store_and_forward_flash_t* ctx )
{
    if( ctx->sending_try_cpt == 0 )
    {
        return 0;
    }
    // Exponential backoff (2^sending_try_cpt * 60s)
    uint32_t delay_s = (1 << ctx->sending_try_cpt) * 60;
    if( delay_s > STORE_AND_FORWARD_DELAY_MAX_S )
    {
        delay_s = STORE_AND_FORWARD_DELAY_MAX_S;
    }
    return delay_s + smtc_modem_hal_get_random_nb_in_range( 0, 60 );
}

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants