From owner-freebsd-net  Tue Nov 27  9:41: 5 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp1.sentex.ca (smtp1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.4])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D78837B419
	for <net@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simoeon.sentex.net (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18])
	by smtp1.sentex.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fARHf0E11202;
	Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:41:00 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from mike@sentex.net)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011127122334.036f8090@marble.sentex.ca>
X-Sender: mdtpop@marble.sentex.ca
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:34:36 -0500
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>
From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
Subject: Re: Revised polling code (some stats)
Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <20011127090907.A99632@iguana.aciri.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011127113111.04f0b390@marble.sentex.ca>
 <5.1.0.14.0.20011127113111.04f0b390@marble.sentex.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-net.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-net>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

At 09:09 AM 11/27/01 -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 11:56:45AM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> >
> > Hi, just as an FYI, I did some simple tests using netperf of the polling
> > code. On first blush, it does look quite nice.  I am going to try and
>
>well, the throughput numbers seems essentially unmodified,
>which is not surprising given that with large packet sizes
>your hardware should be able to bear the load.
>
>I have to say that 60Mbit/s for TCP seems a bit low given your
>hardware, i wonder if you are using half-duplex link
>(this would explain the huge number of errors in the udp test).
>If so, you should really re-run the test with full-duplex.

Hmmm, I think you are right!

fxp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
         inet6 fe80::201:80ff:fe10:46a3%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
         inet 10.1.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.1.1.255
         ether 00:01:80:10:46:a3
         media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX)
         status: active
marble4#

dc3: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
         inet6 fe80::280:c8ff:fef8:51d4%dc3 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
         inet 10.1.1.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.1.1.255
         ether 00:80:c8:f8:51:d4
         media: Ethernet 100baseTX <full-duplex>
         status: active

Name  Mtu   Network       Address            Ipkts Ierrs    Opkts Oerrs  Coll
fxp0  1500  <Link#2>    00:01:80:10:46:a3 42682189     4 27310290     0 338169


That is strange, the fxp _used_ to negotiate duplex settings just fine 
against this card. Perhaps its this poxy onboard variant!

fxp0: <Intel Pro/100 Ethernet> port 0xc800-0xc83f mem 0xe7001000-0xe7001fff 
irq 10 at device 8.0 on pci2
fxp0: Ethernet address 00:01:80:10:46:a3
inphy0: <i82562ET 10/100 media interface> on miibus1
inphy0:  10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto

I will re-run them.

         ---Mike


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message