On Tue, March 23, 2010 22:01, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:13:26AM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> > [r...@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
>> > [r...@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
>> > r...@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-unsubscr...@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
>
> Maybe this is real problem. It seems PHY have trouble to establish
> link. This is FreeBSD stable/8 right?
yes. on 7.2 is even worse :(
> Would you show me the output of "devinfo -rv| grep phy"?
/usr/home/matheus]$ devinfo -rv| grep phy
ukphy0 pnpinfo oui=0x1e model=0x14 rev=0x9 at phyno=1
I'm trying to test it on current, but I think it will be the same (I saw
cvs commits till releng 8 creating and all commits are the same ).
still looking for better performance usb nic :) you think the slower
linksys usb200m (axe based also) will have better luck in this link
negotiation issue ? (I don't need gigabit, just to break the 10Mbps at
start - though breaking the 50Mpbs would be perfert).
thanks,
matheus
>> intel gigabit pcie nic:
>>
>
--
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-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
