From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22907 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2009 08:43:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 22892 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Aug 2009 08:43:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f228.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f228.google.com) (209.85.218.228) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:43:02 +0000 Received: by bwz28 with SMTP id 28so2780920bwz.30 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.34.73 with SMTP id k9mr2047665bkd.45.1251276179323; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:42:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com ([93.85.51.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k29sm3068489fkk.52.2009.08.26.01.42.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:42:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:43:00 -0000 From: Sergei Gavrikov To: Simon Kallweit Cc: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: lwip 1.3.1 testing Message-ID: <20090826084306.GA14585@ubuntu.local> References: <4A8E48C2.10802@intefo.ch> <20090821184336.GA24882@ubuntu.local> <20090824201853.GA10163@ubuntu.local> <4A938008.70909@intefo.ch> <4A939599.8040703@intefo.ch> <20090825120820.GA11701@ubuntu.local> <20090825203324.GA6140@ubuntu.local> <4A94D872.3000606@intefo.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A94D872.3000606@intefo.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:38:42AM +0200, Simon Kallweit wrote: > Sergei Gavrikov wrote: >> 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 ^^^^^^^^^^^ I checked, I got 11 Mips on the board. >> RAM startup, and it seemed for me that was normal result. > > Did you use the old lwip port on that board too? Did you get similar > results in performance? Unfortunately, it is not possible run old nc_test_slave from the box, because it depends on SO_REUSE, and we cannot manage SO_REUSE from CDL, more that, if we force it, we'll get error include/lwip/opt.h:353 Well, I forced SO_REUSE=1 and built the test. I did not noticed that I got more Mbits with old lwip. The packets out of sequence often, but, at the least the slave side was responsible with a loading. FYI old "udpecho" is responsible on (while : ; do echo `date`; sleep 1; done)|nc -u -4 7 and (while : ; do echo `date`; sleep 1; done)|socat - udp4::7 but could not manage stress "yes|". old "tcpecho" could answer on stress "yes". Simon, thanks for the feedback and the port. It will be interesting to know other results from other sources (hardware). Regards, Sergei