nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:31:22 GMT

Hi Florin

That is excellent news, glad to hear you got it working 🙂

I will consider this case resolved then.

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:46:07 GMT

Hi Torbjørn

So I tried your hex files and it worked very well, I got a throughput of around 1.2Mbps. I tried programming the boards using the SEGGER IDE (v1.4.1 of SDK) and it still works, the throughput is still 1.1-1.2Mbps.

Thank you for your help!

Florin.

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:23:11 GMT

Hi Florin

That is odd. I downloaded a fresh install of v1.4.2 and tried again, and even when using only the older nRF5340PDK's I don't see any issues with the throughput.

Can you please try my hex files and see if they give you the expected throughput on your kits?

devzone.nordicsemi.com/.../hex_5F00_files.zip

If you run the bat file it should do a full recover of the board and flash the application and network core with the right files.

I recommend only turning on one kit at the time, otherwise you will have to enter the board number over and over.

The code is built for the nRF5340PDK, not the nRF5340DK, so it assumes you have the older boards.

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:00:03 GMT

Hi Torbjørn

Sorry for the ambiguousness, I have the same issue in all versions.

Thank you,

Florin

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:13:31 GMT

Hi Florin

Do you mean you have the same issue in all versions, or is it working fine in v1.4.1?

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:27:13 GMT

So at first I was using v1.4.1, then I tried v1.4.99-dev1 and v.1.4.2, but none of the worked. So now I went back to v1.4.1

Thank you,

Florin.

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:49:20 GMT

Hi Florin

In v1.4.0 of NCS I have not been able to reproduce this issue, no. I just tested it again and both using the older PDK's and the newer DK's I am getting good throughput.

I did notice that the newer 1.4.99-dev1 tag of NCS did not show give similar results, possibly there is an issue here.

Can you confirm which version of NCS you are using?

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 13:07:40 GMT

Yes, the low throughput.

Thanks,

Florin

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 08:31:14 GMT

Hi Florin

Which problem is that? The low throughput?

[quote user="Florin Mazilu"]Also is this BLE sniffer: https://www.nordicsemi.com/Software-and-tools/Development-Tools/nRF-Sniffer-for-Bluetooth-LE compatible with the nRF5340PDK, because I could not get it to work.[/quote]

I don't think the sniffer has been updated to support the nRF5340DK, no.

I would suggest buying an nRF52840 dongle, they can typically be had for 10 Euros or less.

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:46:31 GMT

Hi Torbjørn

Were you able to replicate this problem? Or maybe pinpoint what the problem is?

Also is this BLE sniffer: https://www.nordicsemi.com/Software-and-tools/Development-Tools/nRF-Sniffer-for-Bluetooth-LE compatible with the nRF5340PDK, because I could not get it to work.

Thank you,

Florin.

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Tue, 22 Dec 2020 11:15:51 GMT

Hi Florin

As shown in the earlier erratas the first versions of the part had a lot of issues, including many peripherals that didn't work at all (USBD, SPIM2, SPIM3, TWIM2, TWIM3, SWI for instance).

There are still some erratas left in the production parts, but these are much less severe and have workarounds available.

If you are planning to enter production it is important that you test your code on production ready parts first.

[quote user="Florin Mazilu"]

And as a final question, shouldn't CONFIG_BT_CTLR = y? Because in the .config file is not set (see line below):

# CONFIG_BT_CTLR is not set

[/quote]

This is the config for the application core I assume, which doesn't have a Bluetooth controller (the controller is running on the network core).

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:44:25 GMT

Hi Torbjørn

Thank you for your response!

I will try your solution for BLE sniffing and get back to you.

Also I will talk to my colleagues about the nRF5340DK board. What are the major differences and benefits of acquiring the DK?

And as a final question, shouldn't CONFIG_BT_CTLR = y? Because in the .config file is not set (see line below):

# CONFIG_BT_CTLR is not set

Best regards,

Florin

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Mon, 21 Dec 2020 14:22:52 GMT

Hi Florin

Doesn't seem to be any major differences there, except for the change in board.

Are you able to capture a sniffer trace when connecting the two boards and running the test?
(no point capturing the whole test transaction, just the first couple of seconds)

That should show more clearly why the transmission is so slow.

If you don't have a dedicated, professional BLE sniffer we provide a free option that can be run on a standard Nordic devkit: https://www.nordicsemi.com/Software-and-tools/Development-Tools/nRF-Sniffer-for-Bluetooth-LE

Also, I would recommend getting some new nRF5340 DK's if possible, so that you can continue development on up to date parts.

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:03:37 GMT

Sure, I will attach it. Unfortunately, I couldn't share it as .config, so I had to rename it, but this is the build/zephyr/.config file

devzone.nordicsemi.com/.../config.txt

Thank you,

Florin.

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:02:44 GMT

Hi Florin

I am using v0.11.0 boards, yes, and building for the nRF5340DK and not the PDK.

It is possible this could be an issue, but I will have to investigate further.

In the mean time are you able to share the build/zephyr/.config file after you build the project in v1.4.99-dev1?

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:58:01 GMT

Hi Torbjørn

I was using v1.4.0, then I removed it and installed v1.4.99-dev1, and after making the changes the throughput stayed the same, very small.

What board are you using? I'm using nRF5340PDK rev. 0.8.0; could this be a hardware problem?

Regards,

Florin.

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:23:19 GMT

Hi Florin

Which NCS version are you using?

I tried this myself in v1.4.99-dev1, and making the same changes suggested earlier in this case I get around 1360kbps transfer speed, which is more or less as good as it gets.

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:19:23 GMT

Thank you for your response!

I tried this and the solution built and ran successfully, but the throughput is very low; i.e. 1kbps for connection interval of 320 units and 76kbps for connection interval of 6 units.

So I tried using the nRF connect app for Android and there I could see the timestamp of each packet received and the contents of the data, with or without the three lines added to the network sample the data length was still the same 244 (see picture below, from 0x00 to 0xF3; I added these values to see the length of the packet).

The picture above is for connection interval of 320 units. As you can see on the timestamp, the first packet was received at 15:35:22.777 and the second one at 15:35:24.376; almost 2 seconds apart. When the connection interval is 6 units the difference between two consecutive packets is much smaller between 20ms and 30ms and the throughput is 76kbps.

Also when I reset the board and the Zephyr OS is booting I get a warning on the terminal emulator.

Regards,

Florin.

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:22:42 GMT

Hi Florin

If you change the CONFIG_BT_MAX_CONN parameter from 16 to 4 it should reduce the memory consumption of the example, and ensure that it builds successfully.

Please give this a go, and let me know whether or not it works for you.

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:00:27 GMT

Hi Florin

Thanks for the report. I tried it myself and see the same issue, apparently the network core runs out of memory when applying this configuration.

I will have to discuss this with the developers and get back to you next week.

Best regards
Torbjørn

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

Florin Mazilu — Thu, 10 Dec 2020 15:13:00 GMT

Hi Torbjørn

I added those lines to prj.conf from the hci_rpmsg folder, but now I get an error when I build the solution:

If I remove those three lines the solution builds without errors.

Thank you,

Florin.

RE: nRF5340PDK Throughput example, very low throughput.

ovrebekk — Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:50:52 GMT

Hi Florin

When running Bluetooth examples on the nRF5340 application core, the network core will be automatically flashed with the hci_rpmsg example, and it is actually for this example you need to change the Bluetooth configuration.

In other words you need to change the prj.conf file in the \zephyr\samples\bluetooth\hci_rpmsg folder, and then rebuild your nRF53 project.

Can you give this a go and see if it fixes the throughput issue?

Best regards
Torbjørn