# Better approach for FEC

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/better-approach-for-fec/243141>\
**Category:** GNU Radio\
**Created:** [August 25, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/better-approach-for-fec/243141 "2015-08-25T20:36:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rafa\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/958977/32.png) [@Rafa\_F](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Rafa_F)\
**Post date:** [August 25, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/better-approach-for-fec/243141/1 "2015-08-25T20:36:59Z")

</div>

Hi,

I have a burst system in gnuradio which is working fine with usrps. I  
have  
used tags (tx\_time, tx\_eob and tx\_sob) to define packet boundaries and  
transmission time. Tags are inserted by a block which is connected  
before  
the usrp sink. I did not use any “tagged stream block” in the burst  
system.  
All the blocks used are streaming blocks.

Now I want to insert FEC in my system. After going through the FEC API,  
I  
realized that I can use any of FEC deployments (Streaming, Tagged  
stream,  
Asynchronus). Are there any difference(s) performance wise? Which one  
should is better for my system?

I have attached a picture of my current system and identified where I  
want  
to insert FEC in tx and rx.

Comments are appreciated.