From owner-freebsd-small Tue Apr 24 21: 3:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-small@freebsd.org Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87BC37B424 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:03:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f3P43Wu01999; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:03:32 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:03:32 -0700 From: Brooks Davis To: Mark Cc: freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is BSD capable?? Message-ID: <20010424210332.A30795@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> References: <002001c0cc6d$be9aee20$8995efd1@quick> <01042421341401.14955@offworld1.net> <20010424145138.B30762@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <01042503542301.15147@offworld1.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AqsLC8rIMeq19msA" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <01042503542301.15147@offworld1.net>; from mark@offworld1.net on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:50:33AM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:50:33AM -0400, Mark wrote: > What I have here is a network set up something like the following (simpli= fied > the best I can). Here at the NOC I have a half duplex Access Point (AP1). > This is linked to Remote Site 1 (RS1). Connected to RS1 are 2 more Access > Points (AP2, AP3). All are half duplex. End users connect to AP2 and AP3.= What > happens is, that when a user connects to say AP2 and starts a download, a= nd a > user connected to AP3 attempts to send an MP3 to his bud up in Spider Bre= ath > MO., AP2 and AP3 both attempt to access the gateway, RS1, in two separate > directions at the same time into a half duplex back haul link.=20 >=20 > In practice, one or the other suffers, and when you have 3 doing a downlo= ad=20 > and one fighting upstream, guess which one loses. That is because there is > no control between AP2 and AP3. Neither one knows what the other is doing. > Being able to install a full duplex link in the backbone would give me a > big boost in overall network performance. Trouble is that a full duplex > link is thou$and$ of dollars more than 2 half duplex links. If this can > be done, great, If not, I start saving my pennies.=20 Ok, so if I understand correctly, you have an oversubscribed half duplex link that gets pounded by collisions when in heavy (bi-directional) use. If that's the case, you might try cranking the rts threshold way down on both ends of the link (that's the -r option to {wi,an}control). This introduces a bit more latency by forcing both ends to ask nicely before they send anything, but if most of you're traffic is big it could be a hugh win. Enabling it on my access point raised ping latench from 1.9ms to 2.1ms, enabling it on my Cisco 340 card turned off the pipe so it appears there's some work to be done in that driver. ;-) If that works, then you could use the money you would have spent building a full-duplex link to double your link speed. ;-) -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE65kyKXY6L6fI4GtQRAjthAJwKC6qvrDpyl6IO6EWmMFEvzU4K/gCgubM+ lLvrvFbKKdGXvqpSw/yAKrU= =m4A/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message