Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: isdn performance problem in 2.1[19]-[22] | Date | Mon, 05 Oct 1998 11:27:48 +0100 | From | David Woodhouse <> |
| |
(Aha - a post made before the Reply-To brain damage. I don't have to muck about with the addresses)
This patch, unfortunately, doesn't help. Our proxy machine, running 2.1.123, started showing precisely the same behaviour that I reported some time ago - ( http://www.linuxhq.com/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk_9809_02/msg00075.html ) - packets are being held on the queue and not being actually put on the wire until something else is added to the end of the outgoing queue.
We also have a lot of TCP checksum failures, but that's a minor problem compared with this one.
ISDN in 2.1.1xx is virtually useless to us when it does this.
eis@baty.hanse.de said: > Hi, > > Richard Schiffelers <ricrjhl@xs4all.nl> writes: > > > > > At 11:58 24-9-98 +0200 Markus Brischke wrote: > > >I noticed that the throughput of my isdn is really bad with 2.1 > > >beginning with 1 kb/s and 5 sec later 400 b/s. I am using a teles hisax 16.3 > > >Card. First i thought that it could be a problem of my provider > > >, so i testet the same things with my stable 2.0.33 kernel and got > > >ca. 8kb/s. I am using predictor compression. My pppd 2.3pl3. > > > > > >I tested this on different days at different times. > > > > > >Does anybody notice same problems? > > > > Yep, same problems. Also using Teles card. I noticed the slowdown in speed > > when i started to run 2.1.122 (didn't run any earlyer 2.1 version together > > with ISDN). I decided to check out what was going on with IPTraf. It showed > > that on de ippp0 interface around 50% of all packets had a wrong checksum > > (and wich are therefore resend). I then switched back to 2.0.35 and again > > checked with IPTraf. No problem and no bad packets. So it seems 2.1 is not > > 100%. Ok, that probably why is it experimental *8^> > > > > >Does anybody have a hint how to fix it. > > Maybe this could also indicate a low level driver problem. Maybe upgrading > to a recent snapshot from the i4l CVS tree might help against driver problem. > > However, I've also sometimes observed such problems (not reproducible, > but with current i4l cvs versions). Could those of you observing > performence problems with isdn on 2.1.x please try the following > patch? It's against the current cvs version, but should also apply > against stock 2.1.122 kernel. > > Henner > > --- 2.1.122-i4ldev/drivers/isdn/isdn_net.c Mon Sep 7 23:23:03 1998 > +++ 2.1.122-ix25/drivers/isdn/isdn_net.c Fri Sep 25 21:47:41 1998 > @@ -1225,12 +1226,14 @@ > if (ret == len) { > lp->transcount += len; > clear_bit(0, (void *) &(ndev->tbusy)); > + mark_bh(NET_BH); > return 0; > } > if (ret < 0) { > dev_kfree_skb(skb); > lp->stats.tx_errors++; > clear_bit(0, (void *) &(ndev->tbusy)); > + mark_bh(NET_BH); > return 0; > } > return 1; > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
---- ---- ---- David Woodhouse David.Woodhouse@mvhi.com Office: (+44) 1223 810302 Project Leader, Process Information Systems Mobile: (+44) 976 658355 Axiom (Cambridge) Ltd., Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambridge, CB5 0NA, UK. finger dwmw2@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk for PGP key.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |