txdelay and kissparms hardware question

txdelay and kissparms hardware question

[aa6qn]

I am wondering is kissparms configuration is really working for me. I have
made adjustments and there seems to be no change in the tnc timing. For
instance if I set txdelay to -t 30 the tnc acts as if it was set to 10ms.
I am wondering if the timing is effected by the faster machines available
today. In my case its a Intel 4, 3.2Ghz hyperthreading dual channel SMP
image. Could this hardware also be the cause of my kernel panic's when I
load ax25?

JohnF

Re: txdelay and kissparms hardware question

[Ralf Baechle DL5RB]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 01:21:25PM -0700, aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net wrote:

> I am wondering is kissparms configuration is really working for me. I have
> made adjustments and there seems to be no change in the tnc timing. For
> instance if I set txdelay to -t 30 the tnc acts as if it was set to 10ms.
> I am wondering if the timing is effected by the faster machines available
> today. In my case its a Intel 4, 3.2Ghz hyperthreading dual channel SMP
> image. Could this hardware also be the cause of my kernel panic's when I
> load ax25?

In case you're using the kiss driver the kernel should just forward this
setting to your TNC which then controls the actual tx delay.  Other drivers
such as 6pack do the tx delay themselves.  So, what driver are you using?

73 de DL5RB op Ralf

--
Loc. JN47BS / CQ 14 / ITU 28 / DOK A21

Re: txdelay and kissparms hardware question

[aa6qn]

> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 01:21:25PM -0700, aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net wrote:
>
>> I am wondering is kissparms configuration is really working for me. I
>> have
>> made adjustments and there seems to be no change in the tnc timing. For
>> instance if I set txdelay to -t 30 the tnc acts as if it was set to
>> 10ms.
>> I am wondering if the timing is effected by the faster machines
>> available
>> today. In my case its a Intel 4, 3.2Ghz hyperthreading dual channel SMP
>> image. Could this hardware also be the cause of my kernel panic's when I
>> load ax25?
>
> In case you're using the kiss driver the kernel should just forward this
> setting to your TNC which then controls the actual tx delay.  Other
> drivers
> such as 6pack do the tx delay themselves.  So, what driver are you using?
>
> 73 de DL5RB op Ralf
>
> --

I was using kissparms to adjust the timing. The input from another person
did help to change the kernel timing to 1000HZ.

Even then the system was still not stable. I have tabled the ax25 suite in
favor of JNOS2 which has been very solid with the latest kernel and Gentoo
linux. Its all working (tunnels, netrom, iptables, snort...) with uDev
etc.

Thank you for your time and help.
JohnF

Re: txdelay and kissparms hardware question

[Ralf Baechle DL5RB]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 04:44:13PM -0700, aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net wrote:
> Date:	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: txdelay and kissparms hardware question
> From:	aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net
> To:	"Ralf Baechle DL5RB" <ralf@linux-mips.org>
> Cc:	aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net, linux-hams@vger.kernel.org
> Content-Type:	text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 01:21:25PM -0700, aa6qn@aa6qn.sytes.net wrote:
> >
> >> I am wondering is kissparms configuration is really working for me. I
> >> have
> >> made adjustments and there seems to be no change in the tnc timing. For
> >> instance if I set txdelay to -t 30 the tnc acts as if it was set to
> >> 10ms.
> >> I am wondering if the timing is effected by the faster machines
> >> available
> >> today. In my case its a Intel 4, 3.2Ghz hyperthreading dual channel SMP
> >> image. Could this hardware also be the cause of my kernel panic's when I
> >> load ax25?
> >
> > In case you're using the kiss driver the kernel should just forward this
> > setting to your TNC which then controls the actual tx delay.  Other
> > drivers
> > such as 6pack do the tx delay themselves.  So, what driver are you using?
> >
> > 73 de DL5RB op Ralf
> >
> > --
> 
> I was using kissparms to adjust the timing. The input from another person
> did help to change the kernel timing to 1000HZ.
> 
> Even then the system was still not stable. I have tabled the ax25 suite in
> favor of JNOS2 which has been very solid with the latest kernel and Gentoo
> linux. Its all working (tunnels, netrom, iptables, snort...) with uDev
> etc.

The HZ value should not have any influence on stability other than maybe
changing some statistcal patterns in the code.  Iow if it makes a
difference on stability that would be a bug.

That said, a few AX.25 system interfaces are using timer ticks as their
unit - a timer tick on i386 used to be 10ms in 2.4, then became 1ms in 2.5
until HZ became a configuration option.  Just to make things more
entertaining (warning: your definition of entertaining may differ ;-) the
size also differs between architectures and even some sub-architectures.
In short: a mess.  So I've cooked a patch that standardizes the unit of
time on 1ms for all platforms.  I did post that a while ago, no feedback
so it must be good.  I'm planning to submitting those patches for 2.6.15
with small changes - 1ms is probably a way to small unit for some of the
values, for example the T3 timer where I believe seconds would be more
convenient.

73 de DL5RB op Ralf

--
Loc. JN47BS / CQ 14 / ITU 28 / DOK A21