From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 13 17:49:39 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 0B59C16A4CE for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:49:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from jk.homeunix.net (dhcp-19-33.dsl.CSUChico.EDU [132.241.19.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759CD43D6A for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:49:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jk@jk.homeunix.net) Received: from jk.homeunix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])i0E1nUmk022241 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from warlock@localhost)i0E1nTJN022240 for current@freebsd.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:49:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:49:29 -0800 From: John Kennedy To: current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040114014929.GA22122@memnoch.jk.homeunix.net> References: <40049AD4.5060007@gddsn.org.cn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40049AD4.5060007@gddsn.org.cn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:28:04 -0800 Subject: Re: bad performance using ndis 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: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:49:39 -0000 On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:26:44AM +0800, Huang wen hui wrote: > hi, > I have R40 and try to get Intel 2100 wlan work. > I download new driver from > http://www-306.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-MATRIX > basicly,wlan works, but performance is bad: > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=92 ttl=64 time=6.718 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=88 ttl=64 time=4267.039 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=91 ttl=64 time=1544.590 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=89 ttl=64 time=3765.145 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=87 ttl=64 time=5986.673 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=93 ttl=64 time=1.980 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=94 ttl=64 time=6.855 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=95 ttl=64 time=6.870 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=7.209 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=97 ttl=64 time=2.118 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=98 ttl=64 time=2.929 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=2223.507 ms (DUP!) > ^C > --- 192.168.1.6 ping statistics --- > 99 packets transmitted, 99 packets received, +104 duplicates, 0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.896/1928.298/10524.836/2269.834 ms That isn't bad performance (unless you consider <= 7ms bad), that is duplicate packets that are taking a long time to make it back to you. Everything that is over 1000 ms is a duplicate. #96, for example: 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=7.209 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=2223.507 ms (DUP!) Whatever is causing the duplicates may be causing your performance to tank as a side-effect, of course.