Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:13:26 -0300 (BRT) From: "Nenhum_de_Nos" <matheus@eternamente.info> To: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 10Mbps+ throughput usb based ethernet recommendation Message-ID: <5f0d2fca99441437799bc5d7f55d6ea9.squirrel@lamneth> In-Reply-To: <a00e68df4a889b419630d96f9f4cb11a.squirrel@lamneth>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, March 22, 2010 23:29, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: > > > On Mon, March 1, 2010 16:10, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:57:02PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: >>> hail, >>> >>> I need an usb nic that is able to push more then 10Mbps on wire. if is > altq capable better. >>> >> >> AFAIK all USB ethernet drivers support altq(4). >> >>> I use pfsense as router, but my next upgrade will use 10Mbps link and > my aue and rue nic's can't pass the 5Mbps barrier. I need to use three > to make 11Mbps on it, and its not a good thing for me in production. >>> >>> I've seen some axe based on its manual page, but I'm afraid to buy and >>> it >>> won't solve my problem. if anyone has any leads/experience on this >>> please >>> broadcast :) >>> >> >> Last time I tried AX88178 based axe(4) controller, I can push more than > 200Mbps. Related change already MFCed to stable/8. > > well, I did that but using that chip on windows :( > > I got two nics based on these chips but they are unstable as hell in > FreeBSD. on pfSense (FreeBSD 7.1 and 7.2 versions) I never got the axe0 > media to be active. on 8-stable (this box), one got issues with media link > and the other can set link state ok, but looses 10% of ping packets. iperf > gets cut every now and then and this makes the throughput suffer :( > > I plan to use pfSense 1.2.3 (7.2 based) and when available pfSense 2.0 > (8.0 based). > > are there any patches to try ? it is really unstable here ... > > some logs: > > Client connecting to 192.168.1.2, TCP port 5001 > TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 42556 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 3] 0.0-32.7 sec 69.5 MBytes 17.8 Mbits/sec > [root@darkside ~]# iperf -c 192.168.1.2 -t 30 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Client connecting to 192.168.1.2, TCP port 5001 > TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 45725 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 3] 0.0-30.6 sec 128 MBytes 35.1 Mbits/sec > [root@darkside ~]# iperf -c 192.168.1.2 -t 30 > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Client connecting to 192.168.1.2, TCP port 5001 > TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 38546 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 3] 0.0-31.0 sec 129 MBytes 35.0 Mbits/sec > > this is: > > FreeBSD xxx 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #7: Sun Mar 21 03:45:47 BRT 2010 > root@xxx:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/xxx amd64 > > and on both ends there is a nic using this chip, here is this freebsd and > the other on windows xp. > > as said above, when run iperf on this nic on windows and my nfe gigabit I > got those 228Mbps said above. > > thanks, > > matheus > > -- > We will call you cygnus, > The God of balance you shall be > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: > Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style > > > > -- > We will call you cygnus, > The God of balance you shall be > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-usb-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > Just adding info, I keep getting these outputs from ifconfig: ue0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 ether 00:11:50:e7:39:e9 inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>) status: active and: ue0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 ether 00:11:50:e7:39:e9 inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex,hw-loopback>) status: active and this keeps repeating over and over. iperf and on the other end an intel gigabit pcie nic: [root@xxx ~]# iperf -c 192.168.1.2 -t 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.1.2, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 52180 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-50.9 sec 392 MBytes 64.6 Mbits/sec [root@xxx ~]# iperf -c 192.168.1.2 -t 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.1.2, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 32.5 KByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 3] local 192.168.1.1 port 62772 connected with 192.168.1.2 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 3] 0.0-30.0 sec 489 MBytes 137 Mbits/sec again it is 32MBps and gets cut down to some KBps, then again 32MBps. I think those link negotiations are to blame, but that's a "I think" :) matheus -- We will call you cygnus, The God of balance you shall be A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_stylehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f0d2fca99441437799bc5d7f55d6ea9.squirrel>