From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Sat Oct 3 14:21:57 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D68A0D451 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:21:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maps@toomeek.waw.pl) Received: from poczta.toomeek.waw.pl (unknown [IPv6:2a02:7aa0:1619::c381:6d70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA1B1FCB for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:21:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maps@toomeek.waw.pl) Received: from [192.168.137.1] (agws40.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [31.63.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by poczta.toomeek.waw.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4ABEC617F1 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: dwc on banana pi pro and poor network performance To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org References: <560ED8DF.4080709@gmx.de> <560F2706.9@toomeek.waw.pl> From: TooMeeK Admin Message-ID: <560FE47E.50703@toomeek.waw.pl> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 16:21:50 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 14:21:57 -0000 Well, did I missed something? Both BPi and BP PRO have same chip. Here's real test from workstation - BPi test: iperf-2.0.5-2-win32>iperf -c 192.168.137.222 -P 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.137.222, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 64.0 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 12] local 192.168.137.1 port 55957 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 9] local 192.168.137.1 port 55954 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 11] local 192.168.137.1 port 55956 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 8] local 192.168.137.1 port 55953 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 10] local 192.168.137.1 port 55955 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 4] local 192.168.137.1 port 55949 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 7] local 192.168.137.1 port 55952 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 6] local 192.168.137.1 port 55951 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 5] local 192.168.137.1 port 55950 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ 3] local 192.168.137.1 port 55948 connected with 192.168.137.222 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 9] 0.0-10.0 sec 94.2 MBytes 79.0 Mbits/sec [ 11] 0.0-10.0 sec 103 MBytes 86.3 Mbits/sec [ 8] 0.0-10.0 sec 115 MBytes 96.6 Mbits/sec [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 111 MBytes 93.0 Mbits/sec [ 6] 0.0-10.0 sec 122 MBytes 102 Mbits/sec [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 106 MBytes 89.1 Mbits/sec [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 113 MBytes 94.6 Mbits/sec [ 12] 0.0-10.0 sec 119 MBytes 99.3 Mbits/sec [ 10] 0.0-10.0 sec 97.0 MBytes 81.1 Mbits/sec [ 7] 0.0-10.0 sec 126 MBytes 105 Mbits/sec [SUM] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.08 GBytes 925 Mbits/sec I assume it's accurate if You're right, huh? The problem here is how to achieve same speeds under FreeBSD. W dniu 2015-10-03 o 06:30, Jim Thompson pisze: > Not even. 600Mbits tops, and that's on a good day, downhill, and with > the wind.