From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: John William <jw2357@hotmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jalvo@mbay.net
Subject: Re: Abysmal RECV network performance
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:56:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3B17207E.BDC70E6A@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F30K3zrwz4kgNr4zCcT0000a5e3@hotmail.com>
John William wrote:
>
> >I've seen many reports like this where the NIC is invalidly in
> >full-duplex more while the router is in half-duplex mode.
>
> [root@copper diag]# ./tulip-diag eth1 -m
> tulip-diag.c:v2.08 5/15/2001 Donald Becker (becker@scyld.com)
> http://www.scyld.com/diag/index.html
> Index #1: Found a Lite-On 82c168 PNIC adapter at 0xfe00.
> Port selection is MII, full-duplex.
> Transmit started, Receive started, full-duplex.
> The Rx process state is 'Waiting for packets'.
> The Tx process state is 'Idle'.
> The transmit threshold is 512.
> MII PHY found at address 1, status 0x782d.
> MII PHY #1 transceiver registers:
> 1000 782d 7810 0000 01e1 41e1 0001 0000
> 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
> 0000 0000 4000 0000 38c8 0010 0000 0002
> 0001 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000.
> [root@copper diag]# ./mii-diag eth1
> Basic registers of MII PHY #1: 1000 782d 7810 0000 01e1 41e1 0001 0000.
> The autonegotiated capability is 01e0.
> The autonegotiated media type is 100baseTx-FD.
> Basic mode control register 0x1000: Auto-negotiation enabled.
> You have link beat, and everything is working OK.
> Your link partner advertised 41e1: 100baseTx-FD 100baseTx 10baseT-FD
> 10baseT.
> End of basic transceiver informaion.
>
> On the NetGear switch, I have indicator lights for 100baseT-FD on both
> connections used for testing. So it appears to me that everything is working
> correctly (hardware).
>
> I keep coming back to a problem with the kernel, or that somehow I have two
> cards (FA310 and 3CSOHO) defective in almost exactly the same way, but only
> on receive. If it were a hardware problem, why would I only get poor
> performance in one direction and not both?
>
> Does anyone have network performance numbers for a comparable machine (P-90
> class)? I'm thinking I should expect 50-70Mbps on a PCI 10/100 ethernet card
> from a P-90 class machine, right?
Depends on what is driving it... An application I built can only push about
80 Mbps bi-directional on PII 550Mhz machines. It is not the most efficient program in
the world, but it isn't too bad either...
I missed the rest of this thread, so maybe you already mentioned it, but
what is the bottleneck? Is your CPU running at 100%?
Greatly increasing the buffers both in the drivers and in the sockets
does wonders for higher-speed connections, btw.
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear@excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-01 4:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-01 3:50 Abysmal RECV network performance John William
2001-06-01 4:56 ` Ben Greear [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-06-01 4:57 John William
2001-06-01 5:22 ` Ben Greear
2001-05-30 2:55 John William
2001-05-31 16:40 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2001-05-29 6:45 Nivedita Singhvi
2001-05-28 3:47 John William
2001-06-01 6:13 ` Stephen Degler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3B17207E.BDC70E6A@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=jalvo@mbay.net \
--cc=jw2357@hotmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox