I know this is not directly programming related, but is there a way to purposely limit the signal strength on a testing mobile device to determine how your app performs under weak signal conditions?
I have an app that streams video and audio to a server, and need to test how it performs in low signal areas.. Any suggestions please?
One realistic way to do it is put it in a weak Faraday cage. You can make one or buy a bag or other pre-manufactured cage that protects against radio transmissions. As long as it's not too strong, it should weaken but not completely block the signal.
you can use a software like network link conditioner on OSX and netlimiter on windows, they have options for bandwidth limiting and even packet loss and presets for different typical situations plus the ability to create some yourself, you can just create a wifi network on your machine and connect to it from the device you want to test
please not that iOS has network link conditioner built-in (you can find it under the developer menu in settings), while android may have something on a rooted device (never tried anything though)
If run run your app in a simulator, many have options for emulating poor signal conditions.
There is at least one open source project whose aim is to simulate different network conditions for exactly the type of testing you are describing:
https://github.com/facebook/augmented-traffic-control
This can work in a cellular network but in this would most likely require your own base stations etc. This is possible via other open source projects (e.g. http://openbsc.osmocom.org/trac/), but is likely not necessary as you can probably simulate the same affect with the WiFi test set up.
Related
I am looking for a wireless communication technology for exchanging data between devices via sound in ultrasonic frequencies.It is possible to communicate with two mobile devices.I want to communicate a mobile and an embedded device.Is it possible?Any device is working with this protocol?
Of course it is possible. Back in the 1970's my TV remote control used ultrasound to change the channel and turn the TV off. The control was somewhat rudimentary IIRC a short press changed the channel up and a long press turned the TV off. It worked quite reliably for these functions.
Providing more functionality would require a more complicated modulation scheme which, as has been said in another answer, would be prone to interference from other sound sources. This probably explains why infra-red communucation signals are used in more modern remote control systems.
It is possible - why shouldn't it be? Smartphones are just embedded computers too. I imagine getting CE/FCC/etc certifications with such an embedded device will not be so easy. And production testing ...
But is it feasible? Probably not. Power consumption is a lot higher than with any RF-link, it's more susceptible to noise (quite literally) and the required components (microphone+speaker) are bigger than RF-components (antenna).
And then there's a whole bunch of other things you need to keep in mind when working with ultrasound, starting with the plastic design of the embedded device. But also things like the effect of ultrasound on people and their pets etc.
I work with an embedded device that has a USB host port. I would like to connect an iPhone to it and communicate via USB. I have done development on this and ported the functionality to connect to usbmux on the iPhone and have successful communication, however there is another problem.
All development was done with the iPhone connected to a powered USB hub that was connected to my device, as soon as I connected it directly, after enumeration it starts to drain the battery of my embedded device and causes a tension (voltage) drop that causes my device to turn off.
I know that after enumeration usb devices can draw up to 500 mA from the usb port, but I was wondering if there was a way to limit that to 100 mA (while still having the iPhone registered).
I found various questions regarding controlling voltage on the data pins or vcc from the usb port and I understand that's not possible, I'm looking for a software solution (although hardware solutions are welcome).
tl;dr: Is there a way to supply the iPhone with less than 500 mA after enumeration? Could I do this in software? Or do I need a hardware solution? I don't want to turn the port on/off, just limit the power draw of the iPhone.
NOTE: I am using Windows CE 6.0, if it is something that can only be done by modifying the drivers, or having direct access, there is no problem.
P.S. also, if there is a way to do this in *nix (or some other open source OS) that I could look at the source code and port it to Windows CE please let me know.
When a device shares its available configurations (see USB chapter 9), it specifies how much power it requires for each configuration. The host should look at all the available configurations and choose which one it wants.
In practice, however, these things don't work so smoothly.
The last time I looked at this, Windows always chose the first configuration. MacOS always chose the lowest power configuration (or highest, I can't remember). I never looked at WinCE or Linux.
If you're writing/modifying the driver, you can set your own rules for which configuration to choose, including looking for one that's 'self powered'. The iPhone, however, might only have one descriptor that always requests 500mA, bus powered. If so, then you're pretty much screwed since there's no way to let the iPhone know it's not OK to draw power.
That being said, I believe all the iPhone accessories are actually USB host (as opposed to USB device), and given that they don't always supply power, the iPhone must be capable of enumerating self powered.
I like the answer by Russ Schultz but I want to add another one:
No.
The descriptor of the peripheral device, iPhone in this case contains bMaxPower. If you enumerate this device, you also accept the power demand. It is not possible to only supply less, lets say 300 mA, if you already enumerated the device with the 500 mA desriptor. If this is what you wanted.
If the device provides multiple configurations, you are as mentioned by Russ free to write a driver which selects the configuration with less power. Hopefully, the device will then only consume the granted power.
Many peripheral devices just don't care. Most devices only provide one configuration with 500 mA. And there are a lot of devices which just consume more than they say ...
I am a physicist, and I had a revelation a few weeks ago about how I might be able to use my personal computer to get much finer control over laboratory experiments than is typically the case. Before I ran off to try this out though, I wanted to check the feasibility with people who have more expertise than myself in such matters.
The idea is to use the i/o ports---VGA, ethernet, speaker jacks, etc.---on the computer to talk directly to the sensors and actuators in the experimental setup. E.g. cut open one side of an ethernet cable (with the other end attached to the computer) and send each line to a different device. I knew a postdoc who did something very similar using a BeagleBone. He wrote some assembly code that let him sync everything with the internal clock and used the GPIO pins to effectively give him a hybrid signal generator/scope that was completely programmable. It seems like the same thing should be possible with a laptop, and this would have the additional benefit that you can do data analysis from the same device.
The main potential difficulty that I foresee is that the hardware on a BeagleBone is designed with this sort of i/o in mind, whereas I expect the hardware on a laptop will probably be harder to control directly. I know for example (from some preliminary investigation, http://ask.metafilter.com/125812/Simple-USB-control-how-to-blink-an-LED-via-code) that USB ports will be difficult to access this way, and VGA is (according to VGA 15 pin port data read and write using Matlab) impossible. I haven't found anything about using other ports like ethernet or speaker jacks, though.
So the main question is: will this idea be feasible (without investing many months for each new variation of the hardware), and if so what type of i/o (ethernet, speaker jacks, etc.) is likely to be the best bet?
Auxiliary questions are:
Where can I find material to learn how I might go about executing this plan? I'm not even sure what keywords to plug in on Google.
Will the ease with which I can do this depend strongly on operating system or hardware brand?
The only cable I can think of for a pc that can get close to this would be a parallel printer cable which is pretty much gone away. It's a 25 wire cable that data is spread across so that it can send more data at the same time. I'm just not sure if you can target a specific line or if it's more of a left to right fill as data is sent.
To use one on a laptop today would definitely be difficult. You won't find any laptops with parallel ports. There are usb to parallel cables and serial to parallel cables but I would guess that the only control you would have it to the usb or serial interface and not the parallel.
As for Ethernet, you have 4 twisted pair with only 2 pair in use and 2 pair that are extra.
There's some hardware that available called Zwave that you might want to look into. Zwave will allow you to build a network of devices that communicate in a mesh. I'm not sure what kind of response time you need.
I actually just thought of something that might be a good solution. Check out security equipment. There's a lot of equipment available for pc's that monitor doors, windows, sensors, etc. That industry might what your looking for.
I think the easiest way would be to use the USB port as a Human Interface Device (HID) and using a custom built PIC program and a PIC that includes the USB functionality to encode the data to be sent to the computer and in that way be able to program it independently from the OS due to the fact that all mayor OS have the HID USB functionality.
Anyways if you used your MIC/VGA/HDMI whatever other port you still need a device to encode the data or transmit it, and another program inside the computer to decode that data being sent.
And remember that different hardware has different software (drivers) that might decode the raw data in other odd ways rendering your IO hardware dependent.
Hope this helps, but thats why the USB was invented in the first place to make it hardware and os independent.
I want to read how much data from 3G every app uses. Is this is possible in iOS 5.x ? And in iOS 4.x? My goal is for example:
Maps consumed 3 MB from your data plan
Mail consumed 420 kB from your data plan
etc, etc. Is this possible?
EDIT:
I just found app doing that: Data Man Pro
EDIT 2:
I'm starting a bounty. Extra points goes to the answer that make this clear. I know it is possible (screen from Data Man Pro) and i'm sure the solution is limited. But what is the solution and how to implement this.
These are just hints not a solution. I thought about this many times, but never really started implementing the whole thing.
first of all, you can calculate transferred bytes querying network interfaces, take a look to this SO answer for code and a nice explanation about network interfaces on iOS;
use sysctl or similar system functions to detect which apps are currently running (and for running I mean the process state is set to RUNNING, like the ps or top commands do on OSX. Never tried I just suppose this to be possible on iOS, hoping there are no problems with app running as unprivileged user) so you can deduce which apps are running and save the traffic stats for those apps. Obviously, given the possibility to have applications runnning in background it is hard to determine which app is transferring data.
It also could be possible to retrieve informations about network activity per process/app like nettop does on OSX Lion, unfortunately nettop uses the private framework NetworkStatistics.framework so you can't dig something out it's implementation;
take into account time;
My 2 cents
No, all applications in iOS are sandboxed, meaning you cannot access anything outside of the application. I do not believe this is possible. Neither do I believe data-traffic is saved on this level on the device, hence apple would have implemented it in either the network page or the usage page in Settings.app.
Besides that, not everybody has a "data-plan". E.g. in Sweden its common that data-traffic is free of charge without limit in either size or speed.
In a nutshell Fast Dormancy allows the RRC state machine to go to IDLE(CELL_PCH) from CELL_DCH without waiting for the timer to expire. Is there any OS (Android, Windows Phone, iOS etc) which exposes APIs using which we can invoke fast dormancy on 3G devices? Any pointers appreciated.
EDIT: Does any OS expose API's to
switch off 3G radio or switch radio
states(DCH,FACH,IDLE etc.)
I'm not sure if I understood your question correctly (I'm not familiar with the actual 3G-technology), but at least BlackBerry API (since 4.2.1) does have the following method:
Requests that the radios belonging to
the provided Wireless Access Families
be powered off.
http://www.blackberry.com/developers/docs/6.0.0api/net/rim/device/api/system/Radio.html#deactivateWAFs(int)
Constants used with the above:
http://www.blackberry.com/developers/docs/6.0.0api/net/rim/device/api/system/RadioInfo.html#WAF_3GPP
Not sure if this is what you actually meant.
It seems that Blackberry also expose fast dormancy since API 4.0.0
http://www.blackberry.com/developers/docs/5.0.0api/net/rim/device/api/io/IOProperties.html#CDMA_SET_FAST_DORMANCY_FLAG
and
http://www.blackberry.com/developers/docs/4.0.2api/net/rim/device/api/io/IOProperties.html
The OFono stack used by MeeGo seems to have Fast Dormancy settings (and radio toggling) in the radio settings api, but I can't really see at which level those would be available to users. The API doc is in their git repo:
http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-cellular/ofono/blobs/5639c653979e324e0b3a195ec3fab07fc2bd3a05/doc/radio-settings-api.txt
I've read NCFD has been blamed for spotty 3G performance on iOS devices in some cases, so I'm not sure programmatically playing with at an application level is such a good idea, especially since you'd be making assumptions about the entire platform's network stack requirements.