Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Horst von Brand wrote: Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: [...] What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate on it's own? This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). I'be seen much more broken networks than buggy autonegotiation. If they negotiate something funny, check and fix the network. -- In this case it's going to negotiate with the exact same device in the other box when connected with a X-over cable, and with a Netgear switch on my desk when not. In both cases, I have complete control of the "network". FYI I just upgraded to Linux-2.6.11 I'm going to repeat my experiment(s) later today after I put the same kernel on my other machine. Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, ChileFax: +56 32 797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush. 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: [...] > > What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate > > on it's own? > This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). I'be seen much more broken networks than buggy autonegotiation. If they negotiate something funny, check and fix the network. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, ChileFax: +56 32 797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
not the e100 driver, but some switch, (e.g. some matrix) has a buggy autonegotiation. On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote: Lee Revell wrote: On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate on it's own? This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). What if you hard set them both to 100/full? I have not noticed any buggy autonegotiation with the e100 driver in several years... Ben -- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
I wonder if switch ports are configured as 100FDX auto=off or 100HDX auto=off. from the report I saw it seems that switch ports are 100HDX auto=off instead of 100FDX auto=off. On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lee Revell wrote: On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate on it's own? This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). What if you hard set them both to 100/full? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
Paul Dickson wrote: On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:02:50 +, Baruch Even wrote: Might this be related to the broken BicTCP implementations in the 2.6.6+ kernels? A fix was added around 2.6.11-rc3 or 4. Unlikely, the problem with BIC would have shown itself only at high speeds over long latency links, not over a lan connection. I only mentioned the possibility because I saw the same profile given by the PDF (the link was mentioned in the patch) while downloading gnoppix via my cable modem. The oscillations of speed varied from 40K to 500+K. The average ended up around 270K. (I was using wget for the download). If it is indeed BIC than we have a bug where it doesn't shut itself off for low latencies. Since we don't test this case extensively here (we work to improve high-speed and just make sure we don't ruin slower speeds) I can't say it's impossible, try turning BIC off and see if it helps. Due to the scenario that the OP gave it is more likely something to do with auto-detection somewhere along the way or a driver bug. It is also possible that I'm mistaken and it is BIC, never hurts to check. Baruch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 01:02:50 +, Baruch Even wrote: > > Might this be related to the broken BicTCP implementations in the 2.6.6+ > > kernels? A fix was added around 2.6.11-rc3 or 4. > > Unlikely, the problem with BIC would have shown itself only at high > speeds over long latency links, not over a lan connection. I only mentioned the possibility because I saw the same profile given by the PDF (the link was mentioned in the patch) while downloading gnoppix via my cable modem. The oscillations of speed varied from 40K to 500+K. The average ended up around 270K. (I was using wget for the download). -Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
Paul Dickson wrote: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:29:24 -0500 (EST), linux-os wrote: Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines. Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch. Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP SOCK_STREAM. If I set both machines to auto-negotiation OFF and half duplex, I get about 9 to 9.5 megabytes/second across the private wire network. If I set one machine to full duplex and the other to half-duplex I get 10 to 11 megabytes/second transfer across the network, regardless of direction. If I set both machines to auto-negotiation OFF and full duplex, I get 300 to 400 kilobytes/second regardless of the direction. Might this be related to the broken BicTCP implementations in the 2.6.6+ kernels? A fix was added around 2.6.11-rc3 or 4. Unlikely, the problem with BIC would have shown itself only at high speeds over long latency links, not over a lan connection. Baruch - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:29:24 -0500 (EST), linux-os wrote: > Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines. > Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch. > Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine > to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP SOCK_STREAM. > > If I set both machines to auto-negotiation OFF and half duplex, > I get about 9 to 9.5 megabytes/second across the private wire > network. > > If I set one machine to full duplex and the other to half-duplex > I get 10 to 11 megabytes/second transfer across the network, > regardless of direction. > > If I set both machines to auto-negotiation OFF and full duplex, > I get 300 to 400 kilobytes/second regardless of the direction. Might this be related to the broken BicTCP implementations in the 2.6.6+ kernels? A fix was added around 2.6.11-rc3 or 4. -Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:30 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > Lee Revell wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > > >>What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate > >>on it's own? > > > > > > This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). > > What if you hard set them both to 100/full? > > I have not noticed any buggy autonegotiation with the e100 driver in several > years... > Sorry, I misread the post. He tried this. I was under the impression this was due to inconsistent implementation of autonegotiation in hardware. When I was an ISP sysadmin we had this problem with various devices (Cisco switches, Linux and BSD/OS machines). A device would get power cycled and one side would come up 100/full, the other 100/half. We ended up hard setting everything. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 20:30 +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > >> What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate > >> on it's own? > > > >This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). > >What if you hard set them both to 100/full? > > If you do that you also need to force the switchports to full duplex. > Lots of switches default to half-duplex without auto-negotiation. > Yup, that was exactly what we ended up doing. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
linux-os wrote: On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote: I supplied the actual settings. What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate on it's own? It goes to half-duplex and runs 9 to 9.5 megabytes/second as stated above. That's why I think 1/2 duplex is __really__ full-duplex. half-duplex will run near line speed in one direction. Try sending in both directions at the same time and you'll get closer to 40% of the link utilization... Also, if you see any collisions you are in half-duplex mode. You could try connecting the NICs back-to-back with a cross-over cable to take your switch out of the loop? Ben -- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
Lee Revell wrote: On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate on it's own? This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). What if you hard set them both to 100/full? I have not noticed any buggy autonegotiation with the e100 driver in several years... Ben -- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: >> What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate >> on it's own? > >This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). >What if you hard set them both to 100/full? If you do that you also need to force the switchports to full duplex. Lots of switches default to half-duplex without auto-negotiation. Mike. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lee Revell wrote: On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate on it's own? This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). What if you hard set them both to 100/full? Lee As previously stated, the through-put is awful. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush. 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Ben Greear wrote: linux-os wrote: Conditions: Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines. Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch. Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP SOCK_STREAM. If I set both machines to auto-negotiation OFF and half duplex, I get about 9 to 9.5 megabytes/second across the private wire network. If I set one machine to full duplex and the other to half-duplex I get 10 to 11 megabytes/second transfer across the network, regardless of direction. That is asking for all sorts of trouble. If I set both machines to auto-negotiation OFF and full duplex, I get 300 to 400 kilobytes/second regardless of the direction. Check for errors in the NICs counters (/proc/net/dev/) in this case. It appears it is not actually set to full-duplex, or maybe it's 10Mbps-FD. Use ethtool to see the actual settings. I supplied the actual settings. What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate on it's own? It goes to half-duplex and runs 9 to 9.5 megabytes/second as stated above. That's why I think 1/2 duplex is __really__ full-duplex. Ben -- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush. 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:20 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate > on it's own? This can be asking for trouble too (auto negotiation is often buggy). What if you hard set them both to 100/full? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Network speed Linux-2.6.10
linux-os wrote: Conditions: Intel NIC e100 device driver. Two identical machines. Private network, no other devices. Connected using a Netgear switch. Test data is the same thing sent from memory on one machine to a discard server on another, using TCP/IP SOCK_STREAM. If I set both machines to auto-negotiation OFF and half duplex, I get about 9 to 9.5 megabytes/second across the private wire network. If I set one machine to full duplex and the other to half-duplex I get 10 to 11 megabytes/second transfer across the network, regardless of direction. That is asking for all sorts of trouble. If I set both machines to auto-negotiation OFF and full duplex, I get 300 to 400 kilobytes/second regardless of the direction. Check for errors in the NICs counters (/proc/net/dev/) in this case. It appears it is not actually set to full-duplex, or maybe it's 10Mbps-FD. Use ethtool to see the actual settings. What happens if you just don't muck with the NIC and let it auto-negotiate on it's own? Ben -- Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
