From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 23 17:11:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2217B16A4CE; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:11:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web.matik.com.br (web.matik.com.br [200.208.167.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7830843D1F; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:11:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from info@matik.com.br) Received: from wsrv.matik.com.br (201-0-9-226.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.0.9.226] (may be forged)) by web.matik.com.br (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7NHCYJb092310; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:12:36 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from info@matik.com.br) Received: from bon04.mega.net.br (bon04.mega.net.br [200.152.81.44]) by wsrv.matik.com.br (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7NHBgbI057117; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:11:42 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from info@matik.com.br) From: Infomatik Organization: Infomatik To: Nikolay Pavlov , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:10:36 -0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20040823095502.GA757@roks.biz> In-Reply-To: <20040823095502.GA757@roks.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408231410.36111.info@matik.com.br> X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version devel-20040712, clamav-milter version 0.70k X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.73, clamav-milter version 0.73a on wsrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:45:50 +0000 Subject: Re: Poor results of network perfomance with 5.2.1-p9. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:11:12 -0000 I am not so sure if your test is giving any usable result for FreeBSD. It seems you are using some wireless equipment between both servers what means that the throuput depends on this APs first. Any correctly cabled 10/100 NIC should give higher throughput than any available 802.11b network equipment. Even if you have a clean radio connection (> 25Db SNR on each side) between both APs, low(est) noise and a PP correctly configured you never get full duplex , one direction ever is slower. Also it depends on the distance between both points I believe. There are also several issues with the wireless equipments, may be you never get some usable cicles from an AP when it is highly used by another connection already. May be you first check your radio connection and before running a test between both server you check pinging the remote AP (even flooding) to see how capable your radio is. I guess you never get more than 1-1.5MB/s bi-directional between both servers. You may get sustained transfer rates of 3-6MB/s in one direction only but I do not know this APs enough to say it exactly. If you need higher traffic you should use Tsunami WL-PP-bridges or 802.11a/b/g cards configured as adhoc instead of this cheap APs connected to your NICs H On Monday 23 August 2004 06:55, Nikolay Pavlov wrote: > Hi, FreeBSD users. > I have made a smimple test of my network connection and have > received rather modest results of network perfomance. Here is my > test conditions: > ------------------------------ > > |FreeBSD4.10-p2 CUSTOM kernel| > |LANRealTek100Mb/s | > |192.168.35.3 | > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > |D-Link DWL-900AP+ | > |Wireless11Mb/s | > > ------------------------------ >