MA (Memory Acceleration) and SR-DVB in Karlsruhe, @ WSR10

Hi everybody,
here are the links to 3 youtube videos covering

SR-DVB Presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfvLCh8ADxk

SR-DVB Demo + MA (Memory Acceleration) Intro

Conclusions and first question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EuqKYKc6mg
(then the small DVD ended, unfortunately :frowning: )

at WSR10, Karlsruhe
during GNURadio-dedicated session.

Links to Presented Paper and Presentation Slides are attached to each
video :slight_smile:

best regards to everybody

vincenzo


Vincenzo P.
http://www.youtube.com/user/wwvince1

Hi Vincenzo - Can you also provide links to your papers, both the
WSR10 one and whatever you can on your MA technique? Enquiring minds
will want to know more about MA … Thanks! - MLD

Vincenzo, I read your new teaser on Memory Acceleration. Time/memory
tradeoffs, yes, have done that. Recursive table aggregation, OK.
Algorithm segmentation, sure. I am still looking forward to the real
paper, when it gets released.

But I have a structural question. We’ve now seen two major projects
that use the USRP, libusrp, and the general software signal processing
paradigm of GNU Radio. But they both totally abandoned the GNU Radio
code base. Both SR-DVB and OpenBTS wrote their own code from scratch,
even though major parts of the computation could have been handled by
GNU Radio processing blocks. Why?

Does something about the structure of GNU Radio doom it to only be
used in “experiments” and “demos”? Is the problem in the complex,
multi-language realtime high level structure, or the low level block
processing structure, or somewhere else? Perhaps it was a legal
issue, that both projects initially thought they didn’t want to
license their code under the GPL? (OpenBTS has since changed its
mind.) Will techniques like memory acceleration be usable in signal
processing blocks embedded in the GNU Radio signal processing
framework? Or does its basic signal flow structure make it an
inappropriate host? If so, what should we do about this?

Have we made it too hard to use GNU Radio as a subroutine library for
the functions close to the hardware (like tuning and demodulation),
letting them be called from a custom main program that includes custom
code for parsing and managing higher level protocols?

How can we make it simpler to build big projects on GNU Radio and
produce reliable and efficient production-quality programs?

John

Hi Michael,
links to WSR10 paper and presentation slides are embedded into the
videos from my previous post.
Believe me, I would love to post the full MA paper right now.
I will do immediately after being allowed to do so by peer reviewing /
publication process.
I will do all possible efforts to obtain such authorization ASAP.

Meanwhile will keep developing MA and provide the most informative
possible updates in case anything significant happens.

Thanks for being interested.

my best regards

vincenzo

2010/3/9 Michael D. removed_email_a[email protected]:

Hi Vincenzo - Can you also provide links to your papers, both the WSR10 one
and whatever you can on your MA technique? Enquiring minds will want to
know more about MA … Thanks! - MLD


Vincenzo P.
http://www.youtube.com/user/wwvince1

On 03/15/2010 01:51 AM, Sylvain M. wrote:

inside a notch of the RX IF filter (at least that’s what the docs says).

Not using the standard libs for tuning is however quite annoying because
when you deviate from the standard 2*RFX setup (like 1 RFX or a
RFX+DBSRX or WBX), you have to change a lot of code :frowning:

The universal driver project will make this a lot easier, since it will
encapsulate all the daughterboard control code.

Matt

Hi,

Both SR-DVB and OpenBTS wrote their own code from scratch,
even though major parts of the computation could have been handled by
GNU Radio processing blocks. Why?

OpenBTS makes uses of inband signaling to maintain strict TX/RX sync,
AFAIK this is not supported in the standard blocks.

They also tweak the way the RFX are tuned, trying to put the TX carrier
inside a notch of the RX IF filter (at least that’s what the docs says).

Not using the standard libs for tuning is however quite annoying because
when you deviate from the standard 2*RFX setup (like 1 RFX or a
RFX+DBSRX or WBX), you have to change a lot of code :frowning:

Just my .02

Cheers,

Sylvain

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs