From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 17 16:40:01 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4718106567D for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:40:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D938FC28 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:40:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6HGe1TD017818 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:40:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m6HGe1PP017817; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:40:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:40:01 GMT Resent-Message-Id: <200807171640.m6HGe1PP017817@freefall.freebsd.org> Resent-From: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org (GNATS Filer) Resent-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Resent-Reply-To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, Geoffrey Mainland Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA360106566B for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:31:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org) Received: from www.freebsd.org (www.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::21]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07AA8FC27 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:31:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org) Received: from www.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6HGVJIi071967 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:31:19 GMT (envelope-from nobody@www.freebsd.org) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by www.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m6HGVJ3W071966; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:31:19 GMT (envelope-from nobody) Message-Id: <200807171631.m6HGVJ3W071966@www.freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:31:19 GMT From: Geoffrey Mainland To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org X-Send-Pr-Version: www-3.1 Cc: Subject: kern/125721: [ath] Terrible throughput/high ping latency with Ubiquiti SR9/XR9 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:40:01 -0000 >Number: 125721 >Category: kern >Synopsis: [ath] Terrible throughput/high ping latency with Ubiquiti SR9/XR9 >Confidential: no >Severity: serious >Priority: medium >Responsible: freebsd-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: sw-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Thu Jul 17 16:40:01 UTC 2008 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Geoffrey Mainland >Release: 7.0-STABLE >Organization: Harvard University >Environment: FreeBSD citysense006 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #32: Fri Jul 11 19:21:09 UTC 2008 root@citybsd7.citysense.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/CITYBSD i386 >Description: I'm running 7-CURRENT on several ALIX 3c2 boards with SR9 radios and having major performance problems: throughput on TCP streams generated by iperf often falls to zero, and, depending on the HAL I use, I see ping latencies during one of these iperf transfers of up to more than a *minute*. I've tried both the 0.9.30.13 HAL and the new 0.10.5.6 HAL. I see this bad behavior with both, but the new HAL seems even worse. I've documented my configuration and the test results at http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mainland/freebsd/sr9/. This includes the kernel configuration, dmesg output, pciconf output, rc.conf, statistics collected from the ath driver, appropriate sysctl values, iperf/ping output generated by my driver script and some plots showing the problem. We are trying to deploy a bunch of these nodes outdoors, using the 900MHz radios as a backhaul, so the drop-outs I see with SR9s are a major problem for us. I've also run the same tests on Soekris nodes, used different SR9s, and also tried the new XR9s on the same ALIX boards---all with similar results. We also have a bunch of Wistrom CM9s which seem to work just fine. Any idea what could be going on? >How-To-Repeat: I see this pattern of behavior with both XR9s and SR9s. It also happens on Soekris 4826 motherboards. >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted: