Hi Mikie,
> Do you have any news regarding my case of slow transfers via
> Speedtouch USB modem on linux ?
I found my old speedtouch modem and tested here. I got 2.1 Mbaud
bulk downspeed, and 3 Mbaud isoc downspeed. This last is half the
speed my line supports, so something is wrong [*].
Hi Mikie,
Do you have any news regarding my case of slow transfers via
Speedtouch USB modem on linux ?
I found my old speedtouch modem and tested here. I got 2.1 Mbaud
bulk downspeed, and 3 Mbaud isoc downspeed. This last is half the
speed my line supports, so something is wrong [*].
Hello Duncan,
Do you have any news regarding my case of slow transfers via
Speedtouch USB modem on linux ?
--
Regards,
MK
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hello Duncan,
Do you have any news regarding my case of slow transfers via
Speedtouch USB modem on linux ?
--
Regards,
MK
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
2007/7/11, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
> Actually I had to mount it (I hope that not having it mounted does
> not change a lot in this matter).
probably not. Not having sysfs mounted can cause hotplug to fail,
but I think not having /proc/bus/usb mounted shouldn't cause any
trouble
Hi,
> Actually I had to mount it (I hope that not having it mounted does
> not change a lot in this matter).
probably not. Not having sysfs mounted can cause hotplug to fail,
but I think not having /proc/bus/usb mounted shouldn't cause any
trouble nowadays.
> I:* If#= 1 Alt= 3 #EPs= 3
2007/7/11, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Mikie,
> I begin to think that the isochronous mode is not working. I tried the
> speedtch module with disabled and enabled isoc and there is no
> difference in transfer speeds at all.
>
> All I checked was :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cat
Hi Mikie,
> I begin to think that the isochronous mode is not working. I tried the
> speedtch module with disabled and enabled isoc and there is no
> difference in transfer speeds at all.
>
> All I checked was :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cat /sys/module/speedtch/parameters/enable_isoc
> Y
>
>
2007/7/10, mikie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tuesday 10 July 2007 11:13:09 mikie wrote:
> > 2007/7/10, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
> > > > also the one from Windows XP
2007/7/10, mikie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 11:13:09 mikie wrote:
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
also the one from Windows XP install (which works
Hi Mikie,
I begin to think that the isochronous mode is not working. I tried the
speedtch module with disabled and enabled isoc and there is no
difference in transfer speeds at all.
All I checked was :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cat /sys/module/speedtch/parameters/enable_isoc
Y
which as I
2007/7/11, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Mikie,
I begin to think that the isochronous mode is not working. I tried the
speedtch module with disabled and enabled isoc and there is no
difference in transfer speeds at all.
All I checked was :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# cat
Hi,
Actually I had to mount it (I hope that not having it mounted does
not change a lot in this matter).
probably not. Not having sysfs mounted can cause hotplug to fail,
but I think not having /proc/bus/usb mounted shouldn't cause any
trouble nowadays.
I:* If#= 1 Alt= 3 #EPs= 3
2007/7/11, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Actually I had to mount it (I hope that not having it mounted does
not change a lot in this matter).
probably not. Not having sysfs mounted can cause hotplug to fail,
but I think not having /proc/bus/usb mounted shouldn't cause any
trouble
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 11:13:09 mikie wrote:
> 2007/7/10, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
> > > also the one from Windows XP install (which works and achieves speeds
> > > of
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 11:13:09 mikie wrote:
> 2007/7/10, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
> > > also the one from Windows XP install (which works and achieves speeds
> > > of up to 720kbyte/sec downlink). Some of the
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
> also the one from Windows XP install (which works and achieves speeds
> of up to 720kbyte/sec downlink). Some of the firmwares did not work
> either, and some worked the same way -
> I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
> also the one from Windows XP install (which works and achieves speeds
> of up to 720kbyte/sec downlink). Some of the firmwares did not work
> either, and some worked the same way - it means not more than 3mbit/s
> (around
2007/7/9, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> One more thing - when the modem finally runs in isochronous mode, yet
> I cannot get high transfer rates. I can't get nothing more than
> 3Mbits/s. When I used kernel 2.4 with bulk mode I had only 2.5 Mbit/s.
> So there is a little progress, but
2007/7/9, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
One more thing - when the modem finally runs in isochronous mode, yet
I cannot get high transfer rates. I can't get nothing more than
3Mbits/s. When I used kernel 2.4 with bulk mode I had only 2.5 Mbit/s.
So there is a little progress, but still not
I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
also the one from Windows XP install (which works and achieves speeds
of up to 720kbyte/sec downlink). Some of the firmwares did not work
either, and some worked the same way - it means not more than 3mbit/s
(around
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
also the one from Windows XP install (which works and achieves speeds
of up to 720kbyte/sec downlink). Some of the firmwares did not work
either, and some worked the same way - it
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 11:13:09 mikie wrote:
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
also the one from Windows XP install (which works and achieves speeds
of up to 720kbyte/sec downlink). Some of the firmwares did not
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 11:13:09 mikie wrote:
2007/7/10, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I also tried a couple of other firmwares available on the net, and
also the one from Windows XP install (which works and achieves speeds
of up to
Hi,
> > Is it actually running in isochronous mode? (It prints some messages
> > about this).
>
> This is what I get:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# cat /sys/module/speedtch/parameters/enable_isoc
> Y
>
> I think it means it confirms the isochronous mode is working.
> Especially that I modified the
2007/7/9, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> One more thing - when the modem finally runs in isochronous mode, yet
> I cannot get high transfer rates. I can't get nothing more than
> 3Mbits/s. When I used kernel 2.4 with bulk mode I had only 2.5 Mbit/s.
> So there is a little progress, but
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 16:40, mikie wrote:
> 2007/7/9, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On 7/9/07, mikie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > > On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
>> > > > 2007/7/6,
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 16:40 +0200, mikie wrote:
> 2007/7/9, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On 7/9/07, mikie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
> > > > > 2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 16:40, mikie wrote:
> 2007/7/9, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On 7/9/07, mikie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > > On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
>> > > > 2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > > >>
2007/7/9, Kay Sievers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 7/9/07, mikie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
> > > 2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
> > >> >
On 7/9/07, mikie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
> > 2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
> >> > On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
> >> >>
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
> 2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
>> > On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I experience some problems with the
2007/7/9, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
> On my system the /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug points to /sbin/hotplug.
> I copied your script to /sbin/hotplug and also added simple logging,
> so I can see whenever the script is being started. It turns out that
> the script is not started at all
Hi,
> On my system the /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug points to /sbin/hotplug.
> I copied your script to /sbin/hotplug and also added simple logging,
> so I can see whenever the script is being started. It turns out that
> the script is not started at all by the kernel...
did you turn hotplug on in
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
> 2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
>> > On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
>> >> regards to
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
> On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
>> regards to its firmware loader.
>> I am not quite sure if this module
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
Hi,
I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
regards to its firmware loader.
I am not quite sure if this module is going to
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
Hi,
I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
regards to its firmware loader.
I
Hi,
On my system the /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug points to /sbin/hotplug.
I copied your script to /sbin/hotplug and also added simple logging,
so I can see whenever the script is being started. It turns out that
the script is not started at all by the kernel...
did you turn hotplug on in your
2007/7/9, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
On my system the /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug points to /sbin/hotplug.
I copied your script to /sbin/hotplug and also added simple logging,
so I can see whenever the script is being started. It turns out that
the script is not started at all by the
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
Hi,
I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module,
On 7/9/07, mikie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
Hi,
I experience
2007/7/9, Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 7/9/07, mikie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
On Friday 6 July 2007
On Mon, July 9, 2007 16:40, mikie wrote:
2007/7/9, Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 7/9/07, mikie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20,
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 16:40 +0200, mikie wrote:
2007/7/9, Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 7/9/07, mikie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, July 6,
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 16:40, mikie wrote:
2007/7/9, Kay Sievers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 7/9/07, mikie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/7/9, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, July 9, 2007 10:49, mikie wrote:
2007/7/6, Indan Zupancic [EMAIL
2007/7/9, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
One more thing - when the modem finally runs in isochronous mode, yet
I cannot get high transfer rates. I can't get nothing more than
3Mbits/s. When I used kernel 2.4 with bulk mode I had only 2.5 Mbit/s.
So there is a little progress, but still not
Hi,
Is it actually running in isochronous mode? (It prints some messages
about this).
This is what I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# cat /sys/module/speedtch/parameters/enable_isoc
Y
I think it means it confirms the isochronous mode is working.
Especially that I modified the source of
2007/7/6, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi, you should keep this discussion on the lkml so it will be archived -
that way it may help others too.
I was sure I copied lkml, but obviously something went wrong.
On Friday 6 July 2007 19:06:14 mikie wrote:
> 2007/7/6, Duncan Sands <[EMAIL
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
> On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
>> regards to its firmware loader.
>> I am not quite sure if this module is going to load the firmware
>> itself or does
On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
> regards to its firmware loader.
> I am not quite sure if this module is going to load the firmware
> itself or does it use some external software to do that ?
It loads it
Hi,
I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
regards to its firmware loader.
I am not quite sure if this module is going to load the firmware
itself or does it use some external software to do that ?
All I get is :
Jul 6 13:41:37 srv kernel: speedtch 1-2:1.0:
Hi,
I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
regards to its firmware loader.
I am not quite sure if this module is going to load the firmware
itself or does it use some external software to do that ?
All I get is :
Jul 6 13:41:37 srv kernel: speedtch 1-2:1.0:
On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
Hi,
I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
regards to its firmware loader.
I am not quite sure if this module is going to load the firmware
itself or does it use some external software to do that ?
It loads it
On Fri, July 6, 2007 16:20, Duncan Sands wrote:
On Friday 6 July 2007 14:54:18 mikie wrote:
Hi,
I experience some problems with the speedtch.c module, especially in
regards to its firmware loader.
I am not quite sure if this module is going to load the firmware
itself or does it use some
2007/7/6, Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi, you should keep this discussion on the lkml so it will be archived -
that way it may help others too.
I was sure I copied lkml, but obviously something went wrong.
On Friday 6 July 2007 19:06:14 mikie wrote:
2007/7/6, Duncan Sands [EMAIL
56 matches
Mail list logo
