On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 03:08:20PM +0300, Sergei Gavrikov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 09:41:13AM +0200, Simon Kallweit wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I have done a new lwip test release with the following changes:
> >
> > * incorporated Sergei's patch (ctrl-c support)
> > * added an lwip_eth_simple and lwip_eth_sequential template
> >
> > The new test release can be downloaded from
> > http://download.westlicht.ch/lwip-20090825.tar.gz
>
> [snip]
>
> > Testing on real hardware would be especially useful. Also testing on
> > big-endian targets might reveal some issues, as I've only been testing
> > on little-endian platforms.
>
> Hi
>
> Simon, I'll retest new package ASAP. And it seems for me that you would
> get more volunteers if you will announce your nowadays work with those
> minimal setup instructions on the ecos-discuss list too. Thanks for a
> tip about the host's side setup for nc test, I will try it too.
I retried nc master/slave test with your template and suggested pbuf
values. For synthetic (I used tap interface) I got good results with
lwIP, but, for real target, nc test passed for 100% master load and no
load of slave side only. I got about 2Mbits per second with the DM900
Ethernet driver (that driver is too slow, it uses memcpy() on every 4
bytes arrived or sent), and my board gives only about 15 VAX Mips for
RAM startup, and it seemed for me that was normal result.
For small TCP packets ("y\n"), I had got good results
yes | socat - tcp4:<board_ip>:7 ;# some stress tcp stream
"tcpecho" test did return "y" very long time, until I did break pipe
(^C).
Unfortunately, I could not manage "udpecho" using socat as above neither
for synthetic nor real hardware. So, my today score for lwIP 1.3.1 is
+ http_simple
+ http_sequential
+ ns_slave_test
+ tcpecho
- udpecho
What was your way to test "udpecho"?
Thanks, regards,
Sergei
