sending messages over a network
I've recently been working on a suite of patches for four laptopists
and need to allow each patch to send messages to all the other patches
(for example, be able to send a bang to 3 other computers
simultaneously, and also be able to receive bangs from any of those
computers).
I've checked out netsend, however it seems that one is only able to
send messages to and receive from one destination at a time. I know
there must be a way that I can get all 4 laptops to send and receive
messages to and from each other over a wireless network
simultaneously. Any ideas?
Bryan
--
http://www.techniquolor.com
On 23 mai 07, at 11:11, Bryan Teoh wrote:
> I know
> there must be a way that I can get all 4 laptops to send and receive
> messages to and from each other over a wireless network
> simultaneously. Any ideas?
There are a couple of interesting java classes installed with Max. Look
in the cycling74/java/help/ folder after the net.*.help files.
p
____________________________
Patrick Delges
Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl
http://users.skynet.be/crfmw/max
Apologies if this is a stupid question, but since all the computers are
macs, could I create a wireless network on one of the computers and have the
other 3 join that one? I have a router, but the less gear necessary is
better since there is already quite a bit involved in this project.
Bryan
On 5/28/07, Kasper T Toeplitz wrote:
>
> >On 28 May 2007, at 08:14, Kasper T Toeplitz wrote:
> >
> >>for more than 2 computers an ethernet router or hub is what you need.
> >
> >To be pedantic - the thing you *don't* want is a hub, since it'll be
> >prone to packet collisions. Actually, you can't buy hubs any more,
> >and switches are pretty cheap.
> >
> >A router is overkill, but can be useful - for example, we used a
> >Linksys running Linux on stage a few months ago, so that we could
> >grant DHCP addresses centrally and keep track of what was going on.
> >
>
>
> yeah sorry, i meant switch - but forgot the word
>
> i mean those little boxes they sell you which have ethernet plugs
> in....... :-)
>
> best
>
> kasper
>
On 28/05/07, Bryan Teoh wrote:
>
> could I create a wireless network on one of the computers and have the
> other 3 join that one?
I've had that work, but occasionally it dropped network messages.
Personally, I wouldn't trust wireless for a performance if *all* messages
were critical.
I'll give it a shot and see how it works. All the computers would be
within close proximity to each other, and there won't be constant
streams of data being interchanged or anything. It's more like a bang
here or there. it might be reliable enough for my needs. Thanks for
the help everyone!
Bryan
On 5/28/07, Arne Eigenfeldt wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 28/05/07, Bryan Teoh wrote:
> > > could I create a wireless network on one of the computers and have the
> > other 3 join that one?
> >
> > I've had that work, but occasionally it dropped network messages.
> >
> > Personally, I wouldn't trust wireless for a performance if *all* messages
> > were critical.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.techniquolor.com
> http://www.ksod.net
>
>I'll give it a shot and see how it works. All the computers would be
>within close proximity to each other, and there won't be constant
>streams of data being interchanged or anything. It's more like a bang
>here or there. it might be reliable enough for my needs. Thanks for
>the help everyone!
>
please, if it works, could you keep me (us) informed - I actualy was
willing to do so, but decided to go the easy route - with wires.
thanks
kasper
--
Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer
http://www.sleazeArt.com
yeah do the personal network thing...
on one computer create an 'ad-hoc' network ie peer to peer. then get everyone to join that network. This avoids using a router. Then you could change the rts cts threshold on each computers network adapter card to a really low value to avoid collision of data packets. Also look into quality of service(Qos) settings if any. Depending on the WiFi card you might even be able to set the amount of retries before a corrupted packet will be dropped. I would use channel 1 or 12 since it will avoid the most overlapp of other wireless networks. You'll have to experiment with all this stuff to see what works best for you. Keep us in the loop.
err just tried to get to some of these settings on an OSX and XP machine... sorry none of that really appply. I've been working with linux lately and these things are all configurable in linux drivers... I'm sure there are some unix hacks for OSX. Anybody know off hand. It would be cool to be able to optimize a wireless card for performance purposes... I'm sure many would be interested.
There's been a fair amount of discussion on the list about the virtues
of wired versus wireless, esp. for performance.
Consensus seemed to be that wireless is slower--my experience bears
this out, particularly when doing installations in "noisy"
environments. But if you aren't sending a lot of data and rely on your
own private network (not the wireless network for some venue
[shudder]), you should be fine.
-- Paul
On 5/28/07, Bryan Teoh wrote:
> I'll give it a shot and see how it works. All the computers would be
> within close proximity to each other, and there won't be constant
> streams of data being interchanged or anything. It's more like a bang
> here or there. it might be reliable enough for my needs. Thanks for
> the help everyone!
>
> Bryan
>
> On 5/28/07, Arne Eigenfeldt wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28/05/07, Bryan Teoh wrote:
> > > > could I create a wireless network on one of the computers and have the
> > > other 3 join that one?
> > >
> > > I've had that work, but occasionally it dropped network messages.
> > >
> > > Personally, I wouldn't trust wireless for a performance if *all* messages
> > > were critical.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.techniquolor.com
> > http://www.ksod.net
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.techniquolor.com
> http://www.ksod.net
>
--
----- |(*,+,#,=)(#,=,*,+)(=,#,+,*)(+,*,=,#)| -----
On May 28, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Kasper T Toeplitz wrote:
> please, if it works, could you keep me (us) informed - I actualy
> was willing to do so, but decided to go the easy route - with wires.
I've done this without wires with MPG. We kept multiple laptops beat
synchronized between two automobiles. The trick is to limit your
data and build in methods for redundant information.
You can use [mxj net.local] to build a simple inferface for switching
between the wired/unwired methods. This allows you to test the
methods or adapt to changing situations.
The part I always hate is having everyone call out their IP address
to the person running the host machine while he/she types them in. I
suppose I could use nethole to create a more automatic method.
-------------------
Nathan Wolek, PhD --- nwolek@stetson.edu
Assistant Professor of Music Technology
Stetson University - DeLand, FL
http://www.nathanwolek.com
On 29 mai 07, at 14:09, Nathan Wolek wrote:
> On May 28, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Kasper T Toeplitz wrote:
>> please, if it works, could you keep me (us) informed - I actualy was
>> willing to do so, but decided to go the easy route - with wires.
> The part I always hate is having everyone call out their IP address to
> the person running the host machine while he/she types them in. I
> suppose I could use nethole to create a more automatic method.
Remy Mulller has on his website an [oscbonjour] external that may
interest you.
->
http://recherche.ircam.fr/equipes/temps-reel/movement/muller/index.php?
entry=entry060616-173626
_____________________________
Patrick Delges
Centre de Recherches et de Formation Musicales de Wallonie asbl
http://users.skynet.be/crfmw/max
On May 29, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Patrick Delges wrote:
> Remy Mulller has on his website an [oscbonjour] external that may
> interest you.
very interesting! i'll have to test that. thanks Patrick!
-------------------
Nathan Wolek, PhD --- nwolek@stetson.edu
Assistant Professor of Music Technology
Stetson University - DeLand, FL
http://www.nathanwolek.com