Node is not using repeater to talk to gateway
-
Here we go:
10 22.08.2016 21:49:41 TX 0 - Gateway N/A C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG R 12 22.08.2016 21:49:41 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0202 14 22.08.2016 21:49:41 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0303 16 22.08.2016 21:49:41 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0463 18 22.08.2016 21:49:41 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 1E1E 20 22.08.2016 21:49:42 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 1F1F 22 22.08.2016 21:49:42 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 6363 24 22.08.2016 21:49:42 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 8B03 25 22.08.2016 21:50:06 TX 99 - Repeater Node N/A C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG R 28 22.08.2016 21:50:06 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0000 30 22.08.2016 21:50:06 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0303 32 22.08.2016 21:50:07 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0404 34 22.08.2016 21:50:07 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 1E1E 37 22.08.2016 21:50:23 RX 2 1 C_SET NO V_TEMP 20.8 39 22.08.2016 21:50:23 RX 2 0 C_SET NO V_HUM 76.1 -
@karl261 Ok, and now send C_INTERNAL | I_DEBUG | E - first to node 99, then to the GW and finally, press Discover in MYSController. This should re-establish the routing table.
-
@tekka I received ok twice back. Now the nano (GW) is blinking like crazy. And so is the pro mini (repeater). I do a power cycle?
-
@tekka Still weird:
99 says 0203 so 02 is going via 03?? Why?
0 says 0263 so 02 is going via 99?247 22.08.2016 22:15:24 TX 99 - Repeater Node N/A C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG R 250 22.08.2016 22:15:24 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0000 252 22.08.2016 22:15:24 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0203 254 22.08.2016 22:15:24 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0404 255 22.08.2016 22:15:50 TX 0 - Gateway N/A C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG R 257 22.08.2016 22:15:50 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0263 259 22.08.2016 22:15:50 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 6363 -
@tekka Still weird:
99 says 0203 so 02 is going via 03?? Why?
0 says 0263 so 02 is going via 99?247 22.08.2016 22:15:24 TX 99 - Repeater Node N/A C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG R 250 22.08.2016 22:15:24 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0000 252 22.08.2016 22:15:24 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0203 254 22.08.2016 22:15:24 RX 99 - Repeater Node INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0404 255 22.08.2016 22:15:50 TX 0 - Gateway N/A C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG R 257 22.08.2016 22:15:50 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 0263 259 22.08.2016 22:15:50 RX 0 - Gateway INTERNAL C_INTERNAL NO I_DEBUG 6363 -
@karl261 But you wrote:
Btw, all is on 2.0.0.
mixed setups are not advisable (and not supported). Please update if possible.
-
@karl261 Can you add this to node 4 (this is the relayed one?):
#define MY_PARENT_NODE_ID 99 #define MY_PARENT_NODE_IS_STATIC@tekka I can add it to node 30 right now. It is also supposed to be relayed. In fact this is why I did start this thread in the first place, I had no luck with these two lines. Will try again.
Oooohhh, there is a mistake further up: I am talking about node 30, and wrote node 3. That is incorrect. Let's see if I can edit. That is why you were asking about the 1.5...
-
@karl261 Can you add this to node 4 (this is the relayed one?):
#define MY_PARENT_NODE_ID 99 #define MY_PARENT_NODE_IS_STATIC -
@tekka Node 30 does still not care about the two lines. It is sending direct.
It also does not send back any routing table. Maybe because it is sleeping most of the time? -
@karl261 If it's not defined as repeater, it won't have a routing table. And yes, sleeping nodes do not listen for incoming traffic. But still, if GW and node 99 are up, it should prefer 99 - can you show me the log of node 30 during booting?
@tekka Now it seems to work.
But I recompiled, because I had MY_DEBUG commented out. Somehow there is something wrong with debug...
Starting sensor (RNNNA-, 2.0.0) TSM:INIT TSM:RADIO:OK TSP:ASSIGNID:OK (ID=30) TSM:FPAR TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-255-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=bc: TSP:MSG:READ 3-3-30 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=3, dist=1) TSP:MSG:PAR OK (ID=3, dist=2) TSP:MSG:READ 99-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=99, dist=1) TSP:MSG:FPAR (PPAR FOUND) TSP:MSG:PAR OK (ID=99, dist=2) TSM:FPAR:OK TSM:ID TSM:CHKID:OK (ID=30) TSM:UPL TSP:PING:SEND (dest=0) TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1 TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-30 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0 TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=0, dist=0) TSP:MSG:READ 0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:2 TSP:MSG:PONG RECV (hops=2) TSP:CHKUPL:OK TSM:UPL:OK TSM:READY Serial started Voltage: 3289 mV TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:0100 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=5,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:2.0.0 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:99 TSP:MSG:READ 0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=15,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:EgTmpHumBat5min TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1.0 151106 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=0,c=0,t=6,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok: TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=1,c=0,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok: Node and 2 children presented. Request registration... TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:2 TSP:MSG:READ 0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 Node registration=1 Init complete, id=30, parent=99, distance=2, registration=1 T: 21.59 TempDiff :121.59 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=0,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:21.6 T sent! H: 81 HumDiff :181.00 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=1,c=1,t=1,pt=2,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:81 H sent! Battery voltage: 3279 mV Battery percent: 98 % TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:98 T: 21.61 TempDiff :0.02 H: 81 HumDiff :0.00 -
@tekka Now it seems to work.
But I recompiled, because I had MY_DEBUG commented out. Somehow there is something wrong with debug...
Starting sensor (RNNNA-, 2.0.0) TSM:INIT TSM:RADIO:OK TSP:ASSIGNID:OK (ID=30) TSM:FPAR TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-255-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=bc: TSP:MSG:READ 3-3-30 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=3, dist=1) TSP:MSG:PAR OK (ID=3, dist=2) TSP:MSG:READ 99-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=99, dist=1) TSP:MSG:FPAR (PPAR FOUND) TSP:MSG:PAR OK (ID=99, dist=2) TSM:FPAR:OK TSM:ID TSM:CHKID:OK (ID=30) TSM:UPL TSP:PING:SEND (dest=0) TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1 TSP:MSG:READ 0-0-30 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:0 TSP:MSG:FPAR RES (ID=0, dist=0) TSP:MSG:READ 0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:2 TSP:MSG:PONG RECV (hops=2) TSP:CHKUPL:OK TSM:UPL:OK TSM:READY Serial started Voltage: 3289 mV TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:0100 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=0,t=17,pt=0,l=5,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:2.0.0 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:99 TSP:MSG:READ 0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=11,pt=0,l=15,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:EgTmpHumBat5min TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=10,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1.0 151106 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=0,c=0,t=6,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok: TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=1,c=0,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok: Node and 2 children presented. Request registration... TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:2 TSP:MSG:READ 0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 Node registration=1 Init complete, id=30, parent=99, distance=2, registration=1 T: 21.59 TempDiff :121.59 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=0,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:21.6 T sent! H: 81 HumDiff :181.00 TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=1,c=1,t=1,pt=2,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:81 H sent! Battery voltage: 3279 mV Battery percent: 98 % TSP:MSG:SEND 30-30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:98 T: 21.61 TempDiff :0.02 H: 81 HumDiff :0.00 -
@tekka Well, yes, I added the two lines you suggested, re-compiled, and then it was not using the 99. And also some posts above, I had these weird messages transmitted 6-7 times, see logs. This happend while MY_DEBUG was commented out.
Hm, I can re-upload the sketch and see if this is reproducible.
-
@tekka Well, yes, I added the two lines you suggested, re-compiled, and then it was not using the 99. And also some posts above, I had these weird messages transmitted 6-7 times, see logs. This happend while MY_DEBUG was commented out.
Hm, I can re-upload the sketch and see if this is reproducible.
-
@tekka No, it seems to work as expected. Any idea why I am getting this "fail" line?
23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-30-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0: 23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:BC 23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:FPAR REQ (sender=30) 23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:CHKUPL:OK 23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:GWL OK 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-30-30 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:0 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 99-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:PINGED (ID=99, hops=1) 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-99 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:2 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:PINGED (ID=30, hops=2) 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;!TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=fail:0100 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:99 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;255;3;0;6;99 23.08.2016 00:30:35 TX 30;255;3;0;6;M 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:M 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=10,sg=0:1.0 151106 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;255;3;0;12;1.0 151106 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=1,c=0,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0: 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;1;0;0;7; 23.08.2016 00:30:35 DEBUG Update child id=1, type=S_HUM 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:2 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=0,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0:24.3 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;0;1;0;0;24.3 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=1,c=1,t=1,pt=2,l=2,sg=0:73 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;1;1;0;1;73 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:91 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;255;3;0;0;91 -
@tekka No, it seems to work as expected. Any idea why I am getting this "fail" line?
23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-30-255 s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0: 23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:BC 23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:FPAR REQ (sender=30) 23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:CHKUPL:OK 23.08.2016 00:30:33 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:GWL OK 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-30-30 s=255,c=3,t=8,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:0 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 99-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:1 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:PINGED (ID=99, hops=1) 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-99 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=24,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:2 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:PINGED (ID=30, hops=2) 23.08.2016 00:30:34 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=25,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0:0100 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;!TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=15,pt=6,l=2,sg=0,ft=0,st=fail:0100 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:99 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;255;3;0;6;99 23.08.2016 00:30:35 TX 30;255;3;0;6;M 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=6,pt=0,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:M 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=12,pt=0,l=10,sg=0:1.0 151106 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;255;3;0;12;1.0 151106 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=1,c=0,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0: 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;1;0;0;7; 23.08.2016 00:30:35 DEBUG Update child id=1, type=S_HUM 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=26,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:2 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:SEND 0-0-99-30 s=255,c=3,t=27,pt=1,l=1,sg=0,ft=0,st=ok:1 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=0,c=1,t=0,pt=7,l=5,sg=0:24.3 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;0;1;0;0;24.3 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=1,c=1,t=1,pt=2,l=2,sg=0:73 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;1;1;0;1;73 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 0;255;3;0;9;TSP:MSG:READ 30-99-0 s=255,c=3,t=0,pt=1,l=1,sg=0:91 23.08.2016 00:30:35 RX 30;255;3;0;0;91 -
@tekka yes, these fails come and go, I see them all the time, but not at the same place necessarily. The logs posted above show plenty of them.
I don't understand this radio trouble.,the distances between the nodes are not long. The radios are all connected using all tricks, the relay is a nrf24+pa+lna which is located in a good location... Maybe all radios are crap? There is only one wifi network and it is not very busy... It's my own. Maybe I should change the channel? 110 or so sounds good. I am using default now. Power is set to max for all nodes, the nrf24+pa+lna is shielded from itself, I put small antenna extensions on the normal ones after @petewill, they all have nice caps, gw and repeater have excellent power sources, ...
I found a script how to test nrf radios... Maybe I should try that?
If I was going to buy new radios, just to try, which ones are the best???
Edit: Hm, I think if I use antennas, it really helps if they all point into the same direction. Like all horizontal or all vertical. Which would make sens, wouldn't it?