Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:45:45 -0400
From:      Chris Gordon <chris@theory14.net>
To:        Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Unexpected Results from nuttcp testing wifi on arm
Message-ID:  <7BCF4E27-E82F-4192-9660-E9F822C6E5A7@theory14.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABx9NuT_6JEWEhwjpvmPsEoQLeA7QHaeQ_Tt5seKFrDMJdN53w@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CABx9NuRjxrauDTpM=yam=Bpw-Wx6CHP8DVcpxV9WwE0tfutN6g@mail.gmail.com> <CABx9NuT_6JEWEhwjpvmPsEoQLeA7QHaeQ_Tt5seKFrDMJdN53w@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Not that it=E2=80=99s a good control experiment, but I found a CLI =
version of the internet speed tests =
(https://github.com/sivel/speedtest-cli)*.  It generated similar results =
as to using nuttcp against a desktop (wired) on my network indicating =
that the BBB was the limiting device.

Chris

* Requires python and a couple of other packages to build/install.


> On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:07 AM, Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> So I am consistently getting very low throughput when testing with
> nuttcp if I use my arm board as the client. If the desktop is the
> client, I am averaging ~8 Mbps. When my arm board is the client, I get
> an average of  just over 1 Mbps. This doesn't seem right to me. Any
> input or confirmation that this is incorrect would be grand. My
> assumption is I have done something wrong. :-/
>=20
> Russ
>=20
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> Well I WAS going to bed and then I looked at the results of my =
testing
>> for the BBB/wifi stuff. This is NOT on a BBB and I have a different
>> wifi adapter so I started a new post.
>>=20
>> When testing wifi on my imx6 (hummingboard) I get drastically
>> different results depending on which side is the client or the =
server.
>>=20
>> Host =3D amd64 TrueOS wired 100Mbps
>> Target =3D imx6  FBSD 12 wifi  (MAC/BBP RT3572 )
>>=20
>>=20
>> amd64 (wired) client -> imx6 Server
>> russellh@prescott:~% nuttcp -n 1000 -v -i1 192.168.2.62 > =
/tmp/prescott1.out
>> http://termbin.com/7o1w
>> #Summary:
>> nuttcp-t: 62.5000 MB in 60.77 real seconds =3D 1053.13 KB/sec =3D =
8.6273 Mbps
>>=20
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>=20
>> imx6 client -> amd64 (wired) Server
>> root@imx6:~ # nuttcp -i 1 -v -n 1000 prescott > /tmp/out.txt
>>=20
>> http://termbin.com/8vvh
>> #Summary:
>> nuttcp-t: 9.0000 MB in 108.96 real seconds =3D 84.58 KB/sec =3D =
0.6929 Mbps
>>=20
>> Is this abnormal? (Please say yes!)
>>=20
>> Russ (more setup details below)
>>=20
>>=20
>> IMX6 test setup:
>>=20
>> root@imx6:~ # uname -a
>> FreeBSD imx6 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #13 r321601M: Thu Sep
>> 14 20:43:21 PDT 2017
>> =
russellh@prescott.highfell.local:/usr/home/russellh/FreeBSD/rh-armv6/obj/a=
rm.armv6/usr/home/russellh/FreeBSD/rh-armv6/src/sys/IMX6
>> arm
>>=20
>> root@imx6:~ # dmesg | grep run0
>> run0 on uhub2
>> run0: <1.0> on usbus1
>> run0: MAC/BBP RT3572 (rev 0x0223), RF RT3052 (MIMO 2T2R), address
>> 60:a4:4c:ec:c9:a5
>> run0: firmware RT3071 ver. 0.33 loaded
>>=20
>> #root@imx6:~ # ifconfig wlan0
>> wlan0: flags=3D8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 =
mtu 1500
>>        ether 60:a4:4c:ec:c9:a5
>>        hwaddr 60:a4:4c:ec:c9:a5
>>        inet 192.168.2.62 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.2.255
>>        groups: wlan
>>        ssid Haleys_DownStairs channel 8 (2447 MHz 11g) bssid =
ac:9e:17:67:85:90
>>        regdomain FCC country US authmode WPA2/802.11i privacy ON
>>        deftxkey UNDEF AES-CCM 2:128-bit txpower 30 bmiss 7 scanvalid =
60
>>        protmode CTS wme roaming MANUAL
>>        media: IEEE 802.11 Wireless Ethernet DS/1Mbps mode 11g
>>        status: associated
>>        nd6 options=3D29<PERFORMNUD,IFDISABLED,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
>>=20
>>=20
>> #amd64 test setup:
>> russellh@prescott:~% uname -a
>> FreeBSD prescott.highfell.local 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #66
>> ac2f0aa3b(trueos-stable)-dirty: Wed Jun 21 01:09:23 UTC 2017
>> root@gauntlet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC  amd64
>>=20
>> russellh@prescott:~% ifconfig re0
>> re0: flags=3D8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 =
mtu
>> 1500
>>        =
options=3D8209b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM,WOL_MAGI=
C,LINKSTATE>
>>        ether 0c:54:a5:18:c1:5b
>>        hwaddr 0c:54:a5:18:c1:5b
>>        inet6 fe80::e54:a5ff:fe18:c15b%re0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
>>        inet 192.168.2.47 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.2.255
>>        nd6 options=3D23<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
>>        media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>)
>>        status: active
>>=20
>>=20
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 10:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: Beaglebone Black + FreeBSD + USB WiFi =3D WAP?
>> To: Chris Gordon <freebsd@theory14.net>
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Chris Gordon <freebsd@theory14.net> =
wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Argh! I was just in Maryland and we flew home from Dulles!!! I made
>>>> the client push the date forward to last week so I could be home =
for
>>>> Labour Day.
>>>>=20
>>>> Have fun! (sob, sob, sob). ;)
>>>=20
>>> Sorry you missed it.  I agree that timing wasn=E2=80=99t great with =
a holiday weekend (for the US at least) on one side and EuroBSDcon very =
soon afterward, but constraints on the availability of the hotel drove =
the exact date.  Maybe we can see you in 2019 (we do the conference =
every other year, opposite MeetBSD).
>>>=20
>>>>>> I used nuttcp for testing the wired connection, so I would plan =
to use that for the Wifi.
>>>>=20
>>>> nuttcp. Got it, I'll start playing with it.
>>>=20
>>> For the testing described in my original email and the data below, I =
used the most basic options from =
https://fasterdata.es.net/performance-testing/network-troubleshooting-tool=
s/nuttcp/.  Specifically:
>>>=20
>>> Server:
>>>        nuttcp -S
>>>=20
>>> Client:
>>>        nuttcp -i1 server_hostname
>>>        and
>>>        nuttcp -i1 -r server_hostname
>>>=20
>> nuttcp client only runs for a maybe 10 requests (it varies) and then =
stops?
>>=20
>> root@imx6:~ # nuttcp -i1 -r prescott
>>    0.9375 MB /   1.01 sec =3D    7.8054 Mbps
>>    1.0000 MB /   0.99 sec =3D    8.4466 Mbps
>>    0.9375 MB /   1.00 sec =3D    7.8644 Mbps
>>    0.9375 MB /   1.00 sec =3D    7.8643 Mbps
>>    0.9375 MB /   1.05 sec =3D    7.4824 Mbps
>>    0.9375 MB /   0.95 sec =3D    8.2873 Mbps
>>    0.9375 MB /   1.00 sec =3D    7.8643 Mbps
>>    1.0625 MB /   1.00 sec =3D    8.9129 Mbps
>>    0.9375 MB /   1.00 sec =3D    7.8640 Mbps
>>    0.8750 MB /   1.00 sec =3D    7.3403 Mbps
>>=20
>>    9.6159 MB /  10.19 sec =3D    7.9151 Mbps 0 %TX 2 %RX 0 =
host-retrans
>> 2.19 msRTT
>>=20
>> This is true with both my host (amd64 TrueOS/FBSD 12-Current) and my
>> humingboard (imx6 12-current). I tried to force it with -n 1000 and
>> got maybe 20 requests. Verbose didn't tell me anything about why it
>> stopped.
>>=20
>> I also can't connect to wpa_cli? Error:
>>=20
>> % wpa_cli
>>    wpa_cli v2.5
>>    Copyright (c) 2004-2015, Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi> and contributors
>>=20
>>    This software may be distributed under the terms of the BSD
>> license.
>>    See README for more details.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>    Interactive mode
>>=20
>>    Could not connect to wpa_supplicant: (nil) - re-trying
>> ^c
>>=20
>> The interweb says on Linux I need to adjust my wpa_supplicant.conf so
>> I will try that.
>>=20
>> I'm having trouble sifting all the emails so I apologise if you've
>> already answered this. Have you done a tcpdump capture of the system
>> and checked if there is anything telling in the transmissions? If I
>> remember correctly you can roll the file output to make it =
digestible.
>> I've used sshfs once on Linux to transfer to a host computer that had
>> more storage (perhaps over serial would reduce test-effect on the
>> unit?), but sd cards are nice and big now.
>>=20
>> Night,
>>=20
>> Russ
>>=20
>>=20
>>>>>> - Can you run the bbb as a standard device (not an access point) =
and
>>>>>> test the performance of the wlan0 interface using the method of
>>>>>> measurement pointed above? I will do the same at some point with =
my
>>>>>> wi-fi dongle.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Yes, that should be easy to do, but will be next week before I =
have a chance.
>>>=20
>>> I did the above -- setup the BBB as a simple WiFi client to my =
existing (ancient) access point.  I ran nuttcp between the BBB and my =
desktop (wired network, access point connected to same wired network).  =
Both the BBBB and desktop were run as server and client for nuttcp.  =
Many runs of the various combinations were run.  I saw the following:
>>> - In general between 10 and 20 Mbps, typically on the lower side.  =
This is consistent for what I see for other devices going to my access =
point (again, it=E2=80=99s an old access point, circa 2008, so I don=E2=80=
=99t expect too much from it)
>>> - I did have one period of slow traffic,  1 Mbps and lower.  After a =
few runs of this, I did a =E2=80=9Cservice netif restart=E2=80=9D, dealt =
with pets for a couple of minutes and when I returned performance was =
back.
>>> - I just hit another period of slow traffic, but this is around 2.5 =
Mbps instead of the really bad < 1 Mbps.  Instead of resetting the =
network, I=E2=80=99m going to let the BBB sit until morning and test =
again then.   I did test my iPad with a speed test app and it=E2=80=99s =
getting a little more than 10 Mbps to the internet through the same =
access point that the BBB is using.
>>>=20
>>> I=E2=80=99ll follow up with what I see in the morning.   My theories =
at this time (neither very good) are:
>>>=20
>>> - There is a lot of wifi congestion around me and when others are =
heavily using their wifi, I suffer.  This is exacerbated by something =
about the usb wifi NIC I have in the BBB.  This doesn=E2=80=99t impact =
the iPad or other devices due to differences in antennae or some other =
aspect of their devices.  This idea doesn=E2=80=99t quite fit with =
everything, but a guess.
>>> - There is something in kernel or wireless stack that degrades over =
time/amount of traffic passed that ends up limiting performance.
>>>=20
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>>=20
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-arm@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arm
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arm-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7BCF4E27-E82F-4192-9660-E9F822C6E5A7>