Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:08:26 +0400 From: "Eygene A. Ryabinkin" <freebsd@rea.mbslab.kiae.ru> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ian Dowse <iedowse@iedowse.com>, hackers@freebsd.org, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@kuzbass.ru>, freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Low umass performance with USB 2.0 ports Message-ID: <20050901120826.GB915@rea.mbslab.kiae.ru> In-Reply-To: <20050901093733.GA915@rea.mbslab.kiae.ru> References: <200508302009.aa99975@nowhere.iedowse.com> <43160334.5000100@samsco.org> <43160943.6030400@samsco.org> <200508312239.04897.hselasky@c2i.net> <20050901093733.GA915@rea.mbslab.kiae.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes, it also works and does even better work: FAT 32 and FAT 16 permormance > are just the same and there is no additional load as been with the Scott's > patch. > So I definitely would vote for this fix. Oops, it seems that this patch also does not work as expected: after some time of playing with flash card and working with the system it started to stall as unpatched system, but it freezes the system -- even IP stack was frozen (I am using DEVICE_POLLING), so I were to remove the flash from the port -- system was unfrozen and continued to work. So something is still bad with the USB. I'll try to do some long testing with USB 1.1 -- maybe it will show the same behaviour after some more time. -- rea
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050901120826.GB915>