[Click] Re: [Roofnet] click.roofnet statically compiled

[Andrea Marasco]

Hi John,

it worked fine with your options. Thanks.
CXXFLAGS=-static is the way to go.

I'd like to test roofnet varying some MAC-layer
parameters. I found several of them in wifi.h but I
have a question regarding the number of link-level
retransmissions. I found two variables max_retries and
max_alt_retries in several files (autoratefallback.cc,
madwifirate.cc, probetxrate.cc and setrate.cc). Which
is the difference between the two variables? From my
understanding I shouldn't vary the retries value in
probetxrate.cc but I should change the values in the
other files. Is that correct?

I'd really appreciate your guidance on that.
Thanks for your help.

Best,

Andrea

--- John Bicket <jbicket at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi Andrea,
> 
> Here is what I run configure with to run on our
> nodes without glibc:
> /home/am5/jbicket/co/click/configure
> --enable-userlevel --enable-wifi
> --disable-linuxmodule --enable-tools=no
> CXXFLAGS=-static
> 
> Let me know how that works.
> 
> I'm not sure if --enable-static and --disable-shared
> work.. Maybe someone knows on the click list.
> 
> --john
> 
> Andrea Marasco [marasco3000 at yahoo.com] wrote:
> >Thanks John,
> > 
> >I compiled click but I am having some portability
> problems due to shared library. I noticed that your
> executable click.roofnet is compiled statically.
> > 
> >I tried to compiled click with no shared libraries
> running
> > 
> >./configure --disable-sahred --enalbe-static
> --target=i386-pc-linux-gnu 
> --prefix=/roof-distr-directory --enable-userlevel
> --enable-wifi --disable-linuxmodule
> >
> >and than running
> > 
> >gmake all
> > 
> >However, the executable I get still needs some
> shared libraries from my host distribution. Could
> you please tell me what options you use to compile
> statically the executable for the roofnet
> distribution?
> > 
> >Thanks,
> > 
> >Andrea
> > 
> >
> >John Bicket <jbicket at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> >We get the same huge binary - if you run "strip" on
> the binary, it'll 
> >be less than 2 megs.
> >
> >Thanks for the fix - I checked it in.
> >
> >--john
> >
> >
> >Andrea Marasco [marasco3000 at yahoo.com] wrote:
> >>Thanks John,
> >>
> >>now it works great!
> >>
> >>Compiling click from source I got an executable
> file 
> >>CLICKDIR/userlevel/click of 14 MB that it is much
> >>bigger than bin/click.roofnet in the tarball (just
> >>1.7MB). Could you please explain me how I can
> compile
> >>click from source and get the smaller version of
> the
> >>executable?
> >>
> >>Thanks for you help.
> >>
> >>Andrea
> >>
> >>
> >>P.S.
> >>
> >>Check scripts/Roofnet.pm line 200, you are missing
> a
> >>$gw_ad in the return statement.
> >>It should be like this:
> >>return ($gw_dev, $gw_ip, $gw_nm, $gw_gw, $gw_ad,
> >>$download_cap, $upload_cap);
> >>
> >>--- John Bicket wrote:
> >>
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Andrea,
> >>> Andrea Marasco [marasco3000 at yahoo.com] wrote:
> >>> >Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> >I upgraded to your latest tarball. The nodes
> work.
> >>> I
> >>> >am able to ping other nodes and ssh into them.
> >>> >However, the /click directory is completely
> empty.
> >>> >Therefore, I am not able to look at the routing
> >>> table,
> >>> >etc...
> >>> >
> >>> >Do you have any idea why that might happen?
> >>> 
> >>> This is because we're running at userlevel now -
> we
> >>> use the scripts
> >>> /home/roofnet/scripts/read_handler.pl and 
> >>> '' write_handler.pl
> >>> to access the handlers that were in click.
> >>> (for instance, we run 
> >>> read_handler.pl srcr/es.bcast_stats 
> >>> to look at neighbor info and
> >>> read_handler.pl srcr/lt.routes
> >>> for the routes).
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> You can also just telnet to port 7777 for an
> >>> interactive session with the
> >>> ControlSocket.
> >>> 
> >>> >
> >>> >Moreover, I think you should take a look at
> >>> >find_srcr.pl. In my case the 5.x.x.x device is
> >>> tun0
> >>> >that is not in the search space of
> find_srcr.pl.
> >>> 
> >>> I just fixed this. Thanks for letting us know.
> >>> 
> >>> >
> >>> >Thanks,
> >>> >
> >>> >Andrea
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >__________________________________________________
> >>> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >>> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> >>> protection around 
> >>> >http://mail.yahoo.com 
> >>> 
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>__________________________________ 
> >>Do you Yahoo!? 
> >>Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
> >>www.yahoo.com 
> >> 
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> >http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com