Re: [ECOS] eCos Performance/ eth0,eth1 Routing problem (number of hops!)

["Roy E Richardson" <eng_at_play@cox.net>]

There are some separate eCos configuration items that may be worth tinkering 
with. I am in a hurry, and don't have ready access to the eCos config tool, 
so the exact names of the config items are not included, but the description 
should be enough to locate each one.

1) the tick timer list organization - sorted by time vs. non-sorted. The 
default config timing option is to use an unsorted list of timers, with an 
explanation to the effect that avoiding the overhead of a sorted by 
expiration time is more efficient.  However the unsorted method requires 
that the entire timing list be scanned for timers to execute each tick.
Use of the sorted timing list is recommended.

2) compiler optimization level - our development was also on a powerPC 
platform, and we chose level 2 for best performance (difference between 2 & 
3 is an arbitrary one, but either is much better than 0 or 1).

3) there is no mention of the level of eCos run-time checks that are 
effective on the test load - if you have not already minimized them ...

PS. I missed the discussion threads that referenced what the caching 
resolution entailed - the MPC's caching is a confusing, but extremely 
effective one - if the system startup does not currently fully utilize 
what's available to the hardware (both read and write), or portions of 
memory excluded due to occaisional flakiness,  then that's another area to 
investigate - this is from one who has "been there and done that".

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Jerdonek" <maj1224@yahoo.com>
To: <mkhoyila@uci.edu>; <ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOS] eCos Performance/ eth0,eth1 Routing problem (number of 
hops!)


>I don't see any problem with the routing tables.  It's
> curious (but not necessarily problematic) that your
> ethx interfaces are also the default gateways.
>
> I have a similar setup, except I have ppp instead of
> eth1.  I am able to send a ping request to the PPP
> interface, and have the ping response exit the
> ethernet interface.  So, I'm reasonable confident that
> your setup will work.  You can verify that by pinging
> the eth1 interface through the eth0 interface.
>
> Make sure that your ping source has a default gateway
> of the eth0 and the ping destination has a default
> gateway of eth1.  If that's correctly setup, then I
> think you're just going to have to dig into the
> source.
>
> -- Matt
>
> --- mkhoyila@uci.edu wrote:
>
>> Indeed, it was cache enabling problem.
>>
>> Here is the new numbers which are getting closer but
>> still needs some work:
>>
>> Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second
>> (single burst) with no drops
>>
>> eCos: max 23,500 packets (60 bytes) per second
>> (single burst) with no drops
>>
>> I DO HAVE A SETUP ISSUE which I need help. I want to
>> route packet coming
>> in from IP address: 192.168.1.80 to eth0 (IP ROUTE)
>> to eth1 and eth1 to
>> route to its destination ip: 192.168.2.80. As you
>> see the purpose is to
>> test performance of my driver and eCos vs Linux by
>> SmartBits. Here is an
>> snap-shot of my eCos route table:
>>
>> UCI DEFAULT GATEWAY TABLE
>> Interface    Gateway IP addr         MAC addr
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Routing tables
>> Destination     Gateway         Mask
>> Flags    Interface
>> 0.0.0.0         192.168.1.8     0.0.0.0         UG
>>     eth0
>> 127.0.0.0       127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0       UG
>>     lo0
>> 127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1                       U
>>     lo0
>> 192.168.1.0     192.168.1.0     255.255.255.0   U
>>     eth0
>> 192.168.2.0     192.168.2.0     255.255.255.0   U
>>     eth1
>>
>> Arp table
>> IP addr             MAC addr             Flags
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> 192.168.1.8         02:10:12:01:00:08    UHCL
>> 192.168.1.80        00:00:00:00:00:01    UHC
>> 192.168.2.8         02:10:12:01:00:09    UHCL
>> 192.168.2.80        00:00:00:00:00:02    UHC
>>
>> Interface statistics
>> IFP: eth0
>> IP: 192.168.1.8, Broadcast: 192.168.1.255, Netmask:
>> 255.255.255.0
>>         UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 1500,
>> Metric: 0
>>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
>> Bytes: 0
>> IFP: eth1
>> IP: 192.168.2.8, Broadcast: 192.168.2.255, Netmask:
>> 255.255.255.0
>>         UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 1500,
>> Metric: 0
>>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
>> Bytes: 0
>> IFP: lo0
>> IP: 127.0.0.1, Broadcast: 127.0.0.1, Netmask:
>> 255.0.0.0
>>         UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 16384,
>> Metric: 0
>>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
>> Bytes: 0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The ip routing between eth0 and eth1 is NOT
>> happening. I am starting to
>> think the number of "hops" is the issue. Here is
>> initialization prints. Is
>> there any other issue you see. Thanks.
>>
>> BOOTP[eth0] op: REPLY
>>        htype: Ethernet
>>         hlen: 6
>>         hops: 0
>>          xid: 0x0
>>         secs: 0
>>        flags: 0x0
>>        hw_addr: 02:10:12:01:00:08
>>      client IP: 192.168.1.8
>>          my IP: 192.168.1.8
>>      server IP: 192.168.1.8
>>     gateway IP: 192.168.1.8
>>   options:
>>         subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
>>        IP broadcast: 192.168.1.255
>>             gateway: 192.168.1.8
>> BOOTP[eth1] op: REPLY
>>        htype: Ethernet
>>         hlen: 6
>>         hops: 0
>>          xid: 0x0
>>         secs: 0
>>        flags: 0x0
>>        hw_addr: 02:10:12:01:00:09
>>      client IP: 192.168.2.8
>>          my IP: 192.168.2.8
>>      server IP: 192.168.2.8
>>     gateway IP: 192.168.2.8
>>   options:
>>         subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
>>        IP broadcast: 192.168.2.255
>>             gateway: 192.168.2.8
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Before posting, please read the FAQ:
>> http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
>> and search the list archive:
>> http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> -- 
> Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
> and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
>
> 



-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss