Does ros2 use inter-process communication when we use it in linux OS ? What about in case of bare metal micro-controllers where there is no OS?
In the future, please set the category to “Next Generation ROS” when discussing ROS 2.
First, I’ll assume you mean “does ROS 2 use any operating system IPC mechanisms between nodes on the same machine, rather than sending data over UDP?”, because the term “inter-process communication” only means communication between two processes, but does not imply what the mechanism is (i.e. UDP or TCP can be IPC).
It depends on the middleware implementation you are using. Currently the default of Fast-RTPS does not use anything other than UDP single cast or multicast. It could, RTPS allows for this in the protocol. I believe some of the proprietary implementations provide a shared-memory based IPC mechanism when on the same machine. Fast-RTPS will hopefully support this in the future.
There have been some experiments which use RTPS on a OS-less microcontroller to communicate with ROS 2 on a desktop and some other experiments to get our ROS 2 API compiling for microcontrollers, but there is no out of the box support for OS-less ROS 2 at this time. We did enough work to convince ourselves that is possible, but haven’t followed through with sustained support because we didn’t have time, though we would love to do that in the future.
In that case though, with no OS, you probably would not be using processes so the idea of “Inter-process communication” doesn’t really make sense. You would be using something more like our “Intra-process communication”, which can avoid sending the message data over the network (UDP in most cases).
RTI’s DDS does use shared memory internally when possible, I think.
Fast RTPS will support shared memory in future releases, is in our roadmap. Regarding microcontrollers we are developing a lightweight version of Fast RTPS based on an OMG future standard for constrained resources devices. Of course it is not a full DDS/RTPS implementation, but a reduced API and different protocol.
You can see the first prototypes in the Dronecode.org use case, and we are working in an release now. This will let you to use ROS2 in micro-controlllers.
If you want more details, please contact me.
Thanks for the update about how Fast RTPS will be evolving. A few questions, is the prototype with Dronecode you’re referring to the work you did on the PX4 project? Additionally, can you point to any public links regarding this new OMG standard for constrained resources? I know that the RTPS standard is publicly available, is a draft of the document you’re referring to available?
The DDS XRCE (“eXtremely Resource Constrained Environments” because all OMG specifications need a cool acronym) specification isn’t even close to finished yet. The RFP is available but you have to be an OMG member to get the working documents, unless someone involved is willing to provide them. When the specification is adopted, that becomes publicly available.
As seems to happen a lot with the DDS specs these days, the RTI/eProsima/Twin Oaks camp and the PrismTech camp have produced their own versions of the XRCE specification and are struggling to reconcile them into a single specification that the OMG can adopt. I won’t wade into the debate over which is better, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from the fact that one of the two camps only has one company it it. I hope it’s not going to be the RPC for DDS spec all over again; the arguments over that could be heard in other meeting rooms. But it seems likely that it will be a year and a half or more before the final specification is released.
Thanks for the informative reply @gbiggs, I had no idea the work was under way.
I attended the OMG meeting last week, so I took the opportunity to hear what PrismTech and RTI/TwinOaks/eProsima had to say about their competing submissions. The following are the notes I took during their presentations. Remember while reading this that it is based solely on the presentations. I haven’t read the submissions themselves in any detail yet.
- They believe that their proposal is more efficient in the wire protocol (trying to save every single byte possible), and supports brokered as well as peer-to-peer communication.
- They have invited the competing submitters to join the PrismTech submission.
- PrismTech believes that they have presented their final submission in Brussels (June) and so were expecting to vote for acceptance in New Orleans (September), but because there are still two competing submissions, and no final submission document was received (only a presentation), this is not possible.
- PrismTech’s reasons for going forward with their own submission:
- XRCE tries to target the most wire/power/memory efficient protocol, targeting not just IP infrastructures but a whole range of infrastructures.
- Their submission provides reliability and fragmentation.
- Their current prototype runs on an 8-bit microprocessor with 1 KB of RAM and has a wire overhead of 4 bytes for data samples.
- They got a review from the AB which was favourable (only editorial comments), and they believe that the AB review shows that they satisfy all the mandatory requirements.
- XRCE applications can be brokered into a DDS data space, or they can discover one another and communicate P2P.
- Their submission is only about the protocol, it does not say anything about the API.
- A DDS-XRCE Agent running on permanently connected hardware provides the access to the rest of the (non-XRCE) DDS domain.
- XRCE provides a data space abstraction in which applictions can read and write data autonomously and asynchronously.
- Data read and written by XRCE applications is associated with one or more resources identified by a URI.
- An XRCE resource is a closed description for a set of named values.
- Resource URIs allow for wildcards, which means that more than one resource can be targeted in one definition, which is useful for capturing collections of sub-namespaces.
- A resource with a cardinality of one is called a Trivial Resource.
- Resources also have properties, which are used to attach QoS settings to them, such as “this resource is transient” or “this resource is reliable”.
- An XRCE selection is the conjunction of a resource and a predicate over the resource content and properties, used to filter a selection. For example, finding all lights with a luminosity greater than zero. (It seems to provide functionality similar to a very basic subset of SQL.)
- There is a mapping from XRCE resources to DDS topics.
- Resource serialisation uses the same format as DDS.
- All XRCE messages are a single-byte header and a body.
- There are flags in the header for reliability and synchronicity.
- Messages can be “decorated” by prefixing them with a one-byte pre-header, which determines some of the properties for the following header byte, such as fragmentation.
- The protocol is little-endian.
- Variable-length encoding is used to save space.
- For addressing, the source address for each message is assumed to be a unique address of the sender.
- The protocol is modular, with a core profile (required for any communication), an optional query profile, and an optional discovery profile.
- e.g. If using a communications system like Bluetooth, which already has discovery, the XRCE discovery profile can be removed, saving some space.
- Discovery happens by scouting (sending a scout message to ask for types of nodes to reply, i.e. broker nodes or durability services or peers or clients).
- Other nodes reply to a scout with a HELLO message.
- After discovery, two nodes need to open a session, which enables publishing and subscribing between those two nodes.
- Authentication data is included in the session open message.
- Locator information, telling the other node how it can be reached, is included in the open message.
- The receiving node replies with an accept message or a reject message.
- There is an FSM describing the states a session goes through.
- Resources and selections are uniquely identified by numerical IDs to save space on the wire.
- A declare message is sent to declare what resources, selections, etc. a node has or will publish or subscribe to.
- Subscriptions can be push, pull, periodic pull or periodic push.
- All data messages and declarations are transported over a conduit (for the session), which is a pair of a reliable and a best-effort channel. Multiple conduits may be used in parallel to avoid head-of-line blocking and allow multicasting.
- One decorator is used to select the conduit for the next message.
- It is possible to make this decorator one byte instead of two if the number of conduits is less than five.
- There is a sync message available to set the next sequence number to expect (e.g. for when not starting at zero).
- The ACKNACK message can acknowledge multiple messages at once, usually up to the given sequence number. It has the option to optionally request retransmission of one or more messages after that point.
- There is a one-shot write function in the protocol, which can do a write of a resource without needing to do any prior registration or discovery.
- This proposal appears to be a very complex protocol with a lot of options in message header structures. An implementation would have a lot of choice points during the decoding of a stream of messages. The “decorator” idea especially may save bytes on the wire (and in message construction buffers) in some cases, but it complicates the protocol implementation.
- PrismTech are already trying to bring their submission to market as a product.
- This proposal also uses an XRCE agent to provide access from DDS-XRCE nodes and the DDS domain.
- An important use case for them is that devices will tend to mostly sleep, and only wake up occassionally to do some processing, and send and receive data. This means that two devices may never be awake at the same time. This is why they have the agent, which is permanently present and provides a way for XRCE nodes to communicate with each other.
- They say that their proposal focuses not just on the XRCE protocol, but also on the interaction between the XRCE protocol and the DDS domain.
- It is possible for an XRCE agent to behave as an XRCE client to another agent, allowing for a hierarchical structure of agents and clients.
- Their proposal is based on the web-enabled DDS specification, with a DDS-XRCE object model in the agent that has a one-to-one mapping to the DDS data model.
- eProsima have put up a demo on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ5eBQ2tZNQ
- Their demo uses 43 KB of RAM (much bigger than the PrismTech proposal, which can fit in 1 KB).
- The XRCE Agent object model is very similar to the DDS object model, making the mapping very simple.
- XRCE objects are modeled as resources that are addressable by their name and have CRUD operations.
- Each resource has a name to address it within the agent and a context; a representation describing the resource; and an ID.
- Resources can be represented as a name, an XML description, or a binary representation.
- Authentication capability is built into the proposal.
- Types are typically pre-defined profiles in the XRCE Agent.
- It is possible to transmit types as binary or XML representations.
- Message structure:
- A message header is either 4 or 8 bytes, depending on if a clientKey is used.
- There is a sub-message header, which is another 8 bytes.
- It is possible to send data in a sequence, meaning the header only needs to be sent once for a bunch of samples.
- The transport can be message-oriented or packet-oriented.
- CDR and DDS-XML representations are reused.
- Message overhead is typically 12 bytes.
- They consider that further reduction in overhead would increase complexity and reduce robustness. e.g. They do not need different code paths for multiple sessions, re-connections, handling variable-length encoding.
- They say it compares favourably to TCP/IP overhead (40 bytes).
- They think they could save 6 bytes from their message header, but the reduction is only 6% in the context of total overhead (when considering the use case of using TCP/IP as the underlying transport protocol) and so is not worth it in the face of increased complexity.
- They also received 3 AB reviews, which they claim were supportive and did not find any non-editorial problems.
- The submissions are very different. PrismTech is aiming for cutting down the bytes used by the protocol to the absolute minimum at the expense of all else. RTI/eProsima/TwinOaks are favouring some overhead in order to achieve a simpler and more robust protocol and implementation.
- PrismTech’s protocol is overly complex with too many choices during the decoding of a message.
- The extra overhead of the RTI/eProsima/TwinOaks submission is not likely to be a problem in the majority of embedded micro-processors used these days (although I’m not sure how many 8-byte, 1KB-of-RAM micros there are in use in new products). However, their consideration that TCP/IP is going to be the most common transport may not be accurate.
Thanks for the summary @gbiggs! I’m very interested in how the work progresses
Thanks Geoff, great stuff!
First of all I’d like to point out that I am one of the author of PrismTech’s/ADLINK XRCE proposal, thus you may think I am giving you my perspective, in that case I urge you to read original documents to see how what I am providing here are facts. That said, let me make a few rectifications to some of the points above.
* They [PrismTech] believe that their proposal is more efficient in the wire protocol (trying to save every single byte possible), and supports brokered as well as peer-to-peer communication.
We are Engineer and Mathematicians not priests. Thus we don’t believe we measure You can find the result of our analysts here http://bit.ly/2yjUZMy but you are welcome to derive them by reading both specs.
* PrismTech believes that they have presented their final submission in Brussels (June) and so were expecting to vote for acceptance in New Orleans (September), but because there are still two competing submissions, and no final submission document was received (only a presentation), this is not possible.
This is also partially correct. We had asked to present what would have been our final proposal in Bruxelles to give a chance to the task-force to digest and one more opportunity to the competing team to join. This has nothing to do with the Vote-to-Vote and the fact that the task-force did not decide to allow the Vote-to-Vote procedure. The OMG has very complex rules… I know that can seam strange, and they still surprise me after having spent more than 10 years dealing with it.
* Their submission is only about the protocol, it does not say anything about the API.
The RFP (which I wrote) asks for a protocol not for an API.
* This proposal appears to be a very complex protocol with a lot of options in message header structures. An implementation would have a lot of choice points during the decoding of a stream of messages. The “decorator” idea especially may save bytes on the wire (and in message construction buffers) in some cases, but it complicates the protocol implementation.
First off, the protocol has a single byte header of which only 3 bits are used for flags and the remainder 5 bits for message-id. There are two flags that are used consistently to identify Reliable and Synchronous messages and another few flags used to mark the presence or absence of some information in the message. Personally I don’t find that daunting complex, it is quite normal in protocol to use flags to this end.
Additionally, you may argue that this may add some complexity in the message parsing – but again – I think that checking a flag and deciding wether some field is going to be present or not does not belong to the realm of hard. It is also worth pointing out that some flags are just informative and don’t require any kind of branching in the decoding. Finally, what I can tell you is that with this protocol we have measured performances that literally blow away RTPS! If you are curious we’ll share the numbers… Or better make available the code for you to see with your eyes And BTW, if our complex specification can fit in 1KB and RTI&Co simple protocol fits in 43KB… There is something wrong… Thus either our is not so complex or their is not so simple
As I’ve explained several times during previous OMG meeting we have customers count bytes, and in some use cases they are not willing to spend more than 7 bytes wire overhead for data samples. Our proposal currently has 4 compared to that of RTI/TwinOaks/eProsima which has 16 bytes. We have had our implementation run on a Makeblock robot using BLE with an MTU of 20 bytes. You can check the comparison on this deck http://bit.ly/2yjUZMy and should wonder why the competing proposal did not provide a proper analysis of the wire overhead. Additionally when leveraging batching we have a wire overhead of (3+n)/n where n is the number of samples being batched.
Some other thing worth point out is that the protocol allows for data to be pushed, pulled or periodically pushed or pulled. The write protocol also allow to pace the streaming of data that results from a remote query. This is extremely important when dealing with resource constrained nodes that need to consume data little by little.
I did not hear RTI saying:
* They also received 3 AB reviews, which they claim were supportive and did not find any non-editorial problems.
But this is far from being true. The AB review should be public and I can ask permission from the AB to post those. The truth is that the two reviews of the AB raised questions concerning whether the submission was actually answering the RFP. The reason why RTI did not want to vote is that their submission – if selected would have been killed by the AB. That is as simple as that.
I’d like to understand why you say this:
* The submissions are very different. PrismTech is aiming for cutting down the bytes used by the protocol to the absolute minimum at the expense of all else. RTI/eProsima/TwinOaks are favouring some overhead in order to achieve a simpler and more robust protocol and implementation.
What do you think is our submission cutting out? We are wire efficient yes, extremely wire efficient but at the same tine we support:
- Dynamic Discovery (RTI does not, please read their spec!)
- Peer to Peer Communication (RTI does not)
- Client to Broker Communication
- Non IP Transports (RTI does not)
- Generalised Queries (RTI only supports DDS-like queries)
- Push/Pull/Periodic-Pull and Periodic-Pull Readers
- Unicast and Multicast communication – for both client to broker and peer-to-peer
At this point my question is have you’ve read both specification? If not, I suggest you do our is available here http://bit.ly/2wtJL3m
I hope this was useful in clarifying a few aspects and I am looking forward to get some feedback once you’ll have read both submissions. I’ll also be more than happy to answer any question you may have about our protocol.
You are being to nice to PrismTech as everyone knows that consistency in design and elegance is seldom achieved through multi-vendor compromises. I think it is best for people to look with their eyes at what the two submission can do and make their own decisions.
On my side I like debates, I like inquisitive minds and I like hard questions. Thus I’ll be more than happy to answer any question on the XRCE protocol proposed by the PrismTech/ADLINK team explain why it is better than RTI proposal… And actually it is better than RTPS.
Thus, please let’s start the open debate to dissect the reasons why our proposal is the one which should be voted and by far the better one.
I’ll give you another small hint of why our XRCE proposal is an improvement over RTPS… Do you know how the RTPS protocol deals with discovery? What happens when you have loads of topics, readers and writers in your system and very asymmetric nodes?
Have you ever tried to do a one shot write in DDS? How much protocol traffic are you going to generate to make that happen… And how many entities do you have to create?
I’ll stop here… for the time being
Thanks @kydos for jumping into the community in such an energetic manner. I think we all appreciate having one of the authors of the proposals providing feedback. That said:
- The view @gbiggs provides is a) unbiased, b) the view of a roboticist (that’s what this community is about ! ) and c) based on the information someone got from hearing “your presentation”. Note the following:
- I believe we all appreciate technical argumentation and slides. I love slides. But what I love even more is code and things that I can reproduce. How can I verify your arguments through experimental results? Is there any open code that supports your arguments? More than bashing around, i think it will do a lot of good to facilitate implementations that others can reproduce in common platforms. Even early stages will do. You might find that you could even get some support (and feedback!) before launching it officially and furthermore, that’ll definitely convince a lot of people on why your approach is better.
- Last but not least, I really hope that the passion you’ve shown answering this thread is shown by supporting and making OpenSplice better.
I think I’ll stop here… for the time being .
Hi Angelo (@kidos),
Coordinate different companies to get a common view on a complex matter is always hard, and in this case, there are multiple design options leading to different tradeoffs.
Our submission (RTI, Twin Oaks & eProsima) already aligns the views of three different DDS vendors, and sure we will try to incorporate ideas of your submission.
Our submission tries to accomplish the following:
- Propose a familiar model to the final user, making use of the DDS object model and specifications: Serialization (CDR), representation (XML-DDS), and some ideas of WS-DDS mapping
- Neither the protocol or the API is designed to save every possible bit, but to have something robust, flexible and easy to use.
We coded a PoC of our submission, and during the presentation, you asked about numbers. At that point, with no optimizations at all, and in debug mode we answered 43Kb. I asked my team to optimize a little bit the code, and here are the numbers we have now for the client:
Total Memory Use: 8 Kb
But we could squeeze that even a little more. We are releasing this as Open Source (Apache 2) so anyone can review the results.
But again, we are not aiming to be as small as possible. We are covering all the requisites of the DDS-XRCE RFP, and testing our solution in what we consider typical microcontrollers today.
Regarding the process at the OMG meeting, we (RTI, Twin Oaks & eProsima) didn’t want to confront both specifications and choose one of them, but have the time to incorporate ideas from your submission, and that is why now we have an extended deadline.
Let me join in the fray. I’m the other author of the PrismTech submission and the one who built our tiny prototype. I wasn’t present at the OMG meetings, and I won’t waste any words on what may or may not have happened there.
Firstly, I don’t think a contest of bytes of RAM adds real value to the discussion, although of course it is an honourable contest in itself I am surprised that you, @Jaime_Martin_Losa, had never even had a proper look at the memory use of your implementation given the purpose of the exercise in the first place, but if it is 8kB now then it is much better already — if still 7kB overweight In any case, memory use is determined more by the implementation than by the protocol messages.
The precise overhead on the wire is of more interest, as this is fundamental to the protocol. BLE gives you 20 bytes to play with, and a difference of a few bytes of header adds up in that context. Furthermore, as Angelo pointed out, we have customers to whom 8 bytes is too many already. Yet even that is not of such great interest to me in this discussion.
What really matters in my opinion is a difference in philosophy. The two proposals suggest very different views of what one would ideally want to accomplish.
The RTI/TwinOaks/eProsima proposal is limited to providing a means for performing DDS operations remotely, and it don’t see how it can do anything other than that. In a sense, it is just a hand-crafted alternative to CORBA with a lower overhead. (Simply using CORBA actually “just works” if the DDS implementation is faithful to the IDL interface mappings, even if it is ugly.) To me, this route is a pragmatic way of going about satisfying the RFP, but at the same time, an uninteresting one. (Sorry @Jaime_Martin_Losa and others …)
We chose to design a compact protocol that can support what amounts to performing DDS operations remotely, but doesn’t limit itself to it. Instead, it also supports a DDS-like peer-to-peer network with vastly lower overhead, and, in many ways a level of flexibility in specifying what data is of interest (through URIs and selections) that DDS doesn’t natively support.
All of that would be of little value if it doesn’t perform well or doesn’t scale well. Just like the code size and memory use are mostly determined by the implementation, so is maximum sustainable performance more determined by implementation than by the details of the protocol headers. Size-wise, my prototype can run as a client on an Arduino Uno (8-bit CPU, 2kB RAM). A small test application using the same implementation configured as a peer easily sends ~700k 8-byte msgs/s from one RPi3 to 3 others (CPU is << 100%, network load ~75% of Fast Ethernet, so I really should investigate why it isn’t faster), and goes another order of magnitude faster when run over local loopback on my MBP. That’s better than your typically DDSI implementation. Is this relevant? That depends on whether you have high rate, tiny messages …
Now my test application doesn’t implement all of DDS — not even close — and this is another significant reason why it can do this with only a few kB of code and RAM. At the same time, this is, I believe, where it gets interesting for ROS2.
As ROS2 has its own middleware abstraction layer that uses only a fraction of the DDS feature set, putting ROS2 directly on our protocol would get you a smaller and a faster system. Smaller and faster usually allows doing more interesting things, even if I can’t say what exactly those interesting things will be.
Disclaimer: I can’t do run ROS2 over it today, there’s more work to be done on my prototype before it supports all that is required. And I wish none of you would have to take my word for the data I mentioned, but that is not something that is in my power to solve today.
It looks like I started something of a minor storm moments before starting a holiday…
I’m thankful that the DDS vendors, PrismTech, RTI, Twin Oaks and eProsima, are all engaged enough in the ROS community to be present on the Discourse board. It is encouraging to future adopters of ROS 2.
I wasn’t implying religious believe. It’s an simply expression to describe someone making an assertion. I fully agree that PrismTech’s submission has much smaller messages than the RTI/Twin Oaks/eProsima submission based on the two presentations alone.
While this is true, the other submission has managed to define an object model as well, and in addition kept it close to the existing DDS one.
It is quite common to use flags. TCP is full of them. My concern is that the protocol is, in my opinion, undoubtedly complex and, based solely on the presentations, more complex than the other submission. Complexity and size are often a balance and in this situation we appear to have one submission at each end of the balance.
With the sorts of overhead you are achieving, I’m not surprised performance is amazing. I’d still like to see numbers, though.
As was stated elsewhere in this thread, eProsima’s implementation wasn’t optimised. Since you said you are trying to bring yours to market already and eProsima claimed theirs was a tech demo, I’m not surprised yours is more optimised and thus smaller. Of course, the numbers are definitely in your favour for RAM usage. But I’m curious how much program memory each implementation requires, too. This is often the limiting factor on embedded microprocessors rather than the RAM usage.
I didn’t catch that even once during the presentation. Next time, put such an important motivating factor in your slides. RTI and co were much better at motivating their design decisions, and that put a positive spin on their submission.
You probably also should have put that requirement in the RFP, if it’s that important. The other submission cannot aim for a requirement they are not aware of.
Since the submissions have not gone to the AB yet, as far as I know, then there should not be any official AB reviews, which suggests to me that RTI asked for unofficial reviews from AB members. This may be why they are not public?
In that case I am very interested in seeing what these AB members wrote.
That may have been RTI’s reason, but the reason the rest of us present voted no is because we still have two vastly different submissions with no apparent readiness to work towards a single one. PrismTech even behaved in their presentation as if they are expecting RTI, Twin Oaks and eProsima to through away their submission and go with PrismTech’s.
“Cutting down”, not “cutting out”. I meant that you are trying to reduce the size of the messages on the wire as much as possible, at the expense of possibly needing more complex parsing code. I didn’t mean to say that you are cutting out features. It was clear from the presentation that PrismTech supports more features and has more flexibility than the other submission. But there are trade-offs involved.
Neither of these are required by the RFP. The RFP heavily directs the submitter towards the style of architecture that RTI/Twin Oaks/eProsima provided.
Yes, this is something that I was disappointed about. Hearing RTI’s presentation talk about TCP/IP only seemed to rule out using it on things like Zigbee. But on the other hand, perhaps it’s readily adaptable?
Well, it is DDS-XRCE, is it not?
It was very useful. I wish I had had this information during the presentation. I still have not had time to read the submissions in detail and unfortunately will not be able to do so before November, but fortunately we now have until February next year to try and resolve this situation.
And, as @vmayoral said, having code available would make a difference to how well we can judge things like implementation complexity.
While this is true, we are operating at a standardisation organisation, not a rubber stamp provider. There are interested parties beyond just the implementers. We would prefer not to just hold a vote on which submission to go forward with. We would prefer the submitters to actually work together and produce a single submission that combines the best of both without any technological compromises (yes, I’m aware how hard that is).
Or, you could provide the answers to those questions, along with the equivalent answers for your submission, so we can see and compare the data to back up your claims.
This is the strongest impression I got from the presentation, as I said in my own notes. The data model is similar to DDS, which makes adoption by existing DDS users easier, and the ability to implement the protocol in a relatively simple piece of code (which makes it easier to verify and certify) was considered as important as saving bytes on the wire. I’m not sure where the correct balance is between these two requirements, but the PrismTech implementation really gave the impression of being at one extreme.
This is something that I think is really relevant but that PrismTech have not addressed at all, and RTI/Twin Oaks/eProsima have not addressed enough. What are the typical microcontrollers in use today? What are the target environments for this protocol to be used in?
The RFP explicitly says this:
Both submissions fit within both the RAM usage (with much room to spare) and the protocol overhead.
More specifically, the actual mandatory requirement is:
Again, this should have been in the RFP if it is so important. That would have saved a lot of trouble. All we got was an evaluation criteria:
This is a miserably small set of criteria for a complex design space. Even you, @eboasson, say that protocol overhead is not as important as the design philosophy.
Which I agree is fundamentally different between the two proposals, and that this is where the root cause lies in the failure to reconcile them.
The RFP not-so-subtly pushes submitters in this direction. You cannot fault them for taking it at face value.
I will read both submissions and when I do, I will report back with more technically-informed comments.
And you see this as a positive aspect? Our model is simpler and more user friendly. For instance, how many people can digest DDS partitions? That said, we have a well defined mapping between XRCE resources and DDS topics.
Are you an OMG member? If so I’ll forward you the reviews. Both submissions went to the AB and the reviews were posted both on firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com. If you have access to those mailing list you’ll be able to see them. I also recommend you take a look at those.
It was impossible as the other vendors did not want to agree on such a low bound. The 24 bytes was the least we could agree on. This is why there is an evaluation on wire-efficiency. This matters were discussed at length, but again I don’t think you attended those meetings, thus you are missing part of the history and the context. In any case, all of those documents are on the OMG archives, thus if of interest you to reconstruct it. Just search for presentation I did on XRCE for almost a year. starting from 2015!
Yes, that is correct as it is since the very beginning that we are trying to do a joint submission. They’ve refused with futile arguments – if you ask me. We have put lots of effort to trying to join but that has not been corresponded. A pity that you were not in the Bruxelles meeting, otherwise you would have had a taste of it.
Again, you did not attend the end-less arguments we had during the RFP drafting. RTI does not want peer-to-peer in XRCE because they fear it could become as substitute for DDSI-RTPS. Again, this is not something I am inferring, but something that was openly debated during the RFP drafting. We don’t have any issue with that as we think that having a more efficient protocol than DDSI-RTPS for some use cases would be extremely useful.
For me that disqualifies completely the submission as in LowPAN environments nobody can afford to use TCP/IP…
I am glad that this helped clarifying the situation, please don’t hesitate to ask any other question. Concerning the code availability we are working on that. I’ll keep you posted.
I wanted to let you know that we have just released under Apache 2 a peer-to-peer implementation of our zenoh protocol called Zeno-He (Zenoh Helium). This implementation fits in about 1KByte of RAM and has 4 bytes wire overhead. This implementation not only is incredibly resource efficient but it is also blazing fast as it delivers incredible point-to-point throughput and low latency.
We will be releasing a brokering system by the end of the year, likewise we be glad to help-out integrating zenoh as one of the protocols supported by ROS2. This could allow to bring ROS2 on micro-controllers!
N.B. For those of you that are familiar with XRCE, zenoh is the protocol we are proposing for standardisation. But as the standard is not finalised yet, we will keep referring it as zenoh.
Thank you for publishing the Zeno-He library so we can all begin to interact with it. It is especially useful for the ROS 2 user community to be aware of the effort since it implements the ATLab XRCE proposal.
I know I would be extremely interested in someone benchmarking Zeno and the proposed epromisa XRCE implementation, and perhaps can find time to do that.