On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
quoted text
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 23:13:32 Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote:
> > > 2.6.21.1:
> > > [  5] local 192.168.1.2 port 58414 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 50=
01
quoted text
> > > [  5]  0.0-60.6 sec  1.13 MBytes    157 Kbits/sec
> > > [  4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 578=
37
quoted text
> > > [  4]  0.0-63.1 sec  2.82 MBytes    375 Kbits/sec
> > >
> > > 2.6.22-rc3:
> > > [  5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 50=
01
quoted text
> > > [  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 516=
33
quoted text
> > > [  4]  0.0-63.1 sec  7.27 MBytes    967 Kbits/sec
> >
> > This is the diff between these two kernels.
> > I'm not sure why you see a much better TX throughput here.
> >
> > Can you re-check to make sure it's not just some test-jitter?
>
> Oh, eh, and what I forgot to ask:
> Do you know an old kernel that works perfectly well for you,
> so I can look at a diff between this one and anything >=3D2.6.21.1.

I don't know any, most older kernels did work fine for me, but I never user=
=20
iperf there so I guess if the bug is there also I simply didn't trigger it.
If you think it's usefull I could go back and try different kernels, but th=
at=20
would take some time.
Except the iperf bug 2.6.21.1 and 2.6.22-rc3 work fine.

Maxi