Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 9 Aug 1997 13:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
To:        "Jamil J. Weatherbee" <jamil@counterintelligence.ml.org>
Cc:        Peter Korsten <peter@grendel.IAEhv.nl>, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ISDN drivers/cards
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970809130550.3841A-100000@misery.sdf.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970809110647.7721B-100000@counterintelligence.ml.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Sat, 9 Aug 1997, Jamil J. Weatherbee wrote:

> going from TA to TA or TA to Router, I'd love to see an internal card that
> doesn't use 16550's that I can put in my freebsd machine and get good

  This can be improved a lot.  Most TAs support a 230400bps rate, but
FreeBSD does not.  Doubling the TA input rate will certainly have a
positive effect on latency.

  FreeBSD-current now detects the 16670 UART that supports 230400 (and
faster.  But it doesn't seem possible to set a port to 230400.

  BTW, it isn't even possible to use full ISDN with at 115200 bps.
Basically if you drive ISDN at 115200, you will get rates of about 10KB/s,
but if you could the entire ISDN line you will get 15KB/s.  This is mainly
due to the extra overhead of async versus sync serial (well, sync serial
carries the "overhead" out of band).

  BTW, I use an 3COM Impact II extrernal ISDN TA.  It works very well,
except that I'd like to drive it at 230400.  At 115200 bps, I get
round-trip times of 80ms.  I'm not sure where you are getting your 100ms
times from, except it could be from a poorly performing TA (ie. old
Bitsurfer), or Win95 (whose PPP performance is terrible, and adds a lot
of packet processing latency).

Tom




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970809130550.3841A-100000>