We evaluated the Twin Oaks implementation on a group of PowerPCs at my last
company. It took a couple of months to set up, and once it was going we
found it had about the same response time as a socket connection for "once
in a while" messages. This makes sense, because that's what it uses under
the hood. Of course it brings lots of other features that you don't get with
your home-grown socket connection, and that's really the value it brings.
However, I can report that on a relatively simple application it worked fine
on largish embedded powerpc systems (512MB RAM, 1GB flash, 700MHz CPU
class).

Regards

Paul Bouchier

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ros-users-bounces@lists.ros.org [mailto:ros-users-
> bounces@lists.ros.org] On Behalf Of Brian Gerkey
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:23 PM
> To: User discussions
> Subject: Re: [ros-users] ROS & DDS
> 
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Geoffrey Biggs
> <geoffrey.biggs@aist.go.jp> wrote:
> > On 13 February 2014 08:47, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am curious to hear from anyone with experience using DDS on low-end
> >> micro-controllers or embedded systems.
> >>
> >> Is it feasible to create firmware with a DDS interface for ROS
messages?
> >
> >
> > RTI has a small-footprint implementation for embedded systems. I
> > haven't used it so I can't comment on how good (or how small) it is,
> > but they are at least aware of the need.
> 
> There's also a small-footprint implementation from Twin Oaks, intended for
> use in embedded systems (I haven't tried it):
> http://www.twinoakscomputing.com/coredx/coredx_size
> 
> Anybody know whether a minimal DDS implementation can be done in
> hardware (e.g., VHDL)?
> 
> brian.
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@lists.ros.org
> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users

_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users