On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
quoted text
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > 2.6.22-rc3:
> >
> > [  5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > [  5]  0.0-60.4 sec  58.9 MBytes  8.18 Mbits/sec
> > [  4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 51633
> > [  4]  0.0-63.1 sec  7.27 MBytes    967 Kbits/sec
>
> Why do we have two different measurements here? Is one TX and one RX?
> Which one?

Yes, the first is TX (BCM4401 --> e100) and the second is RX. Both are tcp=
=20
connections. I think iperf does display the ip addresses wrong in the secon=
d=20
connection, but that's another issue.

quoted text
>
> > koala:~# ping -c10 192.168.1.1
> > PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D1 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.243 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D2 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.234 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D3 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.238 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D4 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.235 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D5 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.230 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D6 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.317 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D7 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.232 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D8 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.232 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D9 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.228 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=3D10 ttl=3D64 time=3D0.238 ms
> >
> > --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
> > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 8997ms
> > rtt min/avg/max/mdev =3D 0.228/0.242/0.317/0.031 ms
> >
> > System responsiveness was the same as with 2.6.21.1.
> >
> > wget got 11.23M/s, again same as 2.6.21.1.
> >
> >
> > 2.6.22-rc2-mm1:
> >
> > [  5] local 192.168.1.2 port 42198 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001
> > [  5]  0.0-60.1 sec    402 MBytes  56.1 Mbits/sec
> > [  4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 48598
> > [  4]  0.0-63.0 sec    177 MBytes  23.6 Mbits/sec
>
> So with -mm (with ssb) you actually get better performace
> then with plain 2.6.22-rc3?
>
> Can you elaborate a bit more about what you get an what you expect
> on which kernel?

When I ran 2.6.21.1 or 2.6.22-rc3 without any debugging tools just in norma=
l=20
use I didn't notice any problems. It did work fine as I would expect it.
I think the wget and ping tests here are as they should be.

With 2.6.22-rc2-mm1 I noticed that connections seem to be slower. The ping=
=20
test does confirm this, because here response times are very high. As far a=
s=20
I can remember the wget download rate was a bit slower than 2.6.21.1 or=20
2.6.22-rc3 till it stalled.
I would expect it to be someting like the other two kernels. The two proble=
ms=20
I see are the high ping times and the fact that the card stopped working.

I don't know why the iperf results are so different from my personal=20
experience. I guess the fact that I get so bad results with 2.6.21.1 and=20
2.6.22-rc3 is that iperf does something that causes the system to be=20
extremely slow and thus degrading performance. This could be a bug somewher=
e=20
in the b44 driver of 2.6.21.1 and 2.6.22-RC3 that has unintended been fixed=
=20
by the ssb switch, but that's only a roughly guess.

Maxi