Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:16:21 -0300 (BRT) From: "Nenhum_de_Nos" <matheus@eternamente.info> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 10Mbps+ throughput usb based ethernet recommendation Message-ID: <3e164e2fc77415a67bd7d22e9c51168b.squirrel@cygnus.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20100324010107.GM1278@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <a00e68df4a889b419630d96f9f4cb11a.squirrel@lamneth> <5f0d2fca99441437799bc5d7f55d6ea9.squirrel@lamneth> <20100324010107.GM1278@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, March 23, 2010 22:01, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: >> >> On Mon, March 22, 2010 23:29, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, March 1, 2010 16:10, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:57:02PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: >> >>> hail, >> >>> >> >>> I need an usb nic that is able to push more then 10Mbps on wire. if >> is >> > altq capable better. >> >>> >> >> >> >> AFAIK all USB ethernet drivers support altq(4). >> >> >> >>> I use pfsense as router, but my next upgrade will use 10Mbps link >> and >> > my aue and rue nic's can't pass the 5Mbps barrier. I need to use three >> > to make 11Mbps on it, and its not a good thing for me in production. >> >>> >> >>> I've seen some axe based on its manual page, but I'm afraid to buy >> and >> >>> it >> >>> won't solve my problem. if anyone has any leads/experience on this >> >>> please >> >>> broadcast :) >> >>> >> >> >> >> Last time I tried AX88178 based axe(4) controller, I can push more >> than >> > 200Mbps. Related change already MFCed to stable/8. >> > >> > well, I did that but using that chip on windows :( >> > >> > I got two nics based on these chips but they are unstable as hell in >> > FreeBSD. on pfSense (FreeBSD 7.1 and 7.2 versions) I never got the >> axe0 >> > media to be active. on 8-stable (this box), one got issues with media >> link >> > and the other can set link state ok, but looses 10% of ping packets. >> iperf >> > gets cut every now and then and this makes the throughput suffer :( >> > >> > I plan to use pfSense 1.2.3 (7.2 based) and when available pfSense 2.0 >> > (8.0 based). >> > >> > are there any patches to try ? it is really unstable here ... >> > >> > some logs: >> > >> > Client connecting to 192.168.1.2, TCP port 5001 >> > TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > [ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 42556 connected with 192.168.1.2 port >> 5001 >> > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth >> > [ 3] 0.0-32.7 sec 69.5 MBytes 17.8 Mbits/sec >> > [root@darkside ~]# iperf -c 192.168.1.2 -t 30 >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > Client connecting to 192.168.1.2, TCP port 5001 >> > TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > [ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 45725 connected with 192.168.1.2 port >> 5001 >> > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth >> > [ 3] 0.0-30.6 sec 128 MBytes 35.1 Mbits/sec >> > [root@darkside ~]# iperf -c 192.168.1.2 -t 30 >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > Client connecting to 192.168.1.2, TCP port 5001 >> > TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> > [ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 38546 connected with 192.168.1.2 port >> 5001 >> > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth >> > [ 3] 0.0-31.0 sec 129 MBytes 35.0 Mbits/sec >> > >> > this is: >> > >> > FreeBSD xxx 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #7: Sun Mar 21 03:45:47 BRT >> 2010 >> > root@xxx:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/xxx amd64 >> > >> > and on both ends there is a nic using this chip, here is this freebsd >> and >> > the other on windows xp. >> > >> > as said above, when run iperf on this nic on windows and my nfe >> gigabit I >> > got those 228Mbps said above. >> > >> > thanks, >> > >> > matheus >> > >> > -- >> > We will call you cygnus, >> > The God of balance you shall be >> > >> > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. >> Q: >> > Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > We will call you cygnus, >> > The God of balance you shall be >> > >> > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. >> > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style >> > _______________________________________________ >> > freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list >> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb >> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-usb-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> > >> >> Just adding info, I keep getting these outputs from ifconfig: >> >> ue0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu >> 1500 >> ether 00:11:50:e7:39:e9 >> inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 >> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>) >> status: active >> and: >> ue0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu >> 1500 >> ether 00:11:50:e7:39:e9 >> inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 >> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex,hw-loopback>) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> status: active >> >> and this keeps repeating over and over. iperf and on the other end an > > Maybe this is real problem. It seems PHY have trouble to establish > link. This is FreeBSD stable/8 right? yes. on 7.2 is even worse :( > Would you show me the output of "devinfo -rv| grep phy"? /usr/home/matheus]$ devinfo -rv| grep phy ukphy0 pnpinfo oui=0x1e model=0x14 rev=0x9 at phyno=1 I'm trying to test it on current, but I think it will be the same (I saw cvs commits till releng 8 creating and all commits are the same ). still looking for better performance usb nic :) you think the slower linksys usb200m (axe based also) will have better luck in this link negotiation issue ? (I don't need gigabit, just to break the 10Mbps at start - though breaking the 50Mpbs would be perfert). thanks, matheus >> intel gigabit pcie nic: >> > -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3e164e2fc77415a67bd7d22e9c51168b.squirrel>