Every gateway running older packet forwarders like the stock basic/gps forwarder or early versions of poly forwarder because those versions of the software do not implement JIT queuing and send every packet received from the back-end to hardware which has no queue. So the last packet to arrive would be transmitted and earlier packets lost.
I’ve been told there should be a feature request allowing to specify the delay for RX1 for a node. Hopefully that will be implemented in the new back-end because the current window is far too small for any useful application processing (when combined with all other delays)
They suffer the same delay last time I checked, the reason I was told is the back-end does not distinguish between the two types of gateways. (semtech or ttn-gateway-connector protocol)
Wow, they are really hostile on Twitter. For me, a supplier accusing others in the open and then asking people to send an email if they want proof, would quickly drop from my possible supplier list, but well…
(This forum shows timing has always been tedious with TTN and now MatchX claims “a sudden deceitful 4.6s change”?)
For me they don’t seem experienced since they obviously didn’t know which code they are using. The directed me to a source link which has a 30msec delay. That was a lie! Later they just say they changed it to 500msec and without explaining why they did so.
Yes I tried explaining to them on twitter that this affects all gateways I’ve tried but they don’t appear to be the most reasonable people on this issue.
I prefer a Hanlon’s razor approach to it but have to say there has been a running rumour that TTN protocol / TTN gateways would have a “preferred” path, even before MatchX took to twitter about it.
So far in my tests TTN protocol has actually had worse delay, likely because of all the overhead (can’t compete with simple JSON over UDP)
There have not been any changes in the scheduling logic since we doubled the time-before-tx on March 10 2016 (1bb19bf818). After reading the discussion here (and on Twitter) I just added another 200ms (c8bd97b135) to increase support for slow connections (or slow gateways). I’ll try to have that change deployed later today.
This is definitely not true. In the future we may give application owners the option to prefer authenticated/secure gateways (using MQTT or gRPC over TLS) over unauthenticated/insecure gateways (using JSON over UDP), but that won’t be enabled by default.
The MQTT server in between indeed adds a bit of delay. We’re working hard on reducing this by optimizing our MQTT server. Right now the extra delay is a few milliseconds at worst.
I didn’t choose a update myself. They pushed it to 0.0.4 without notifying me after the long discussions. I think you have to contact them on all channels to make them react.
That is possible and the usual way they seem to act. Unfortunally you don’t have the chance to really know that. You have to believe the firmware version that is displayed.
I won’t expect them to acknowledge any bug that is found to be their fault. By definition it seems that only TTN can be the bad guy.