Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Sep 1996 18:14:47 -0500 (CDT) | From | Edward Welbon <> | Subject | Re: bad PPP Performance (with and without IRQTUNE) |
| |
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> Symptoms: system is normally lightning FAST. Compiles a complete kernel, on > an Iomega Jaz drive in about 3-4 minutes (distclean, depend, make, zlilo, > modules, modules_install).
Very good, I'd like to know more of the details of the configuration.
> PPP is on either Motorola BitSRFR PRO (115,200 on one B channel) or a new USR > Sportster ``33.6 capable'', again, at 115,200. > > setserial /dev/cua{1,2} spd_vhi is done on both. > > Using CU, either on the built-in UARTs or the external one, serial I/O is FAST. > Hard to measure but flies on the screen, with the ISDN linke visibly faster. > > Running PPP (pppd 2.2.0f) disconnects two/three times upon dialup from > either line. Once connection is established, performance is horrendous. > Typically ftp will do 800 bytes/sec on the ISDN line. Less on the > modem.
Um, 800 bytes/second is a mite slow.
Is this MLPPP on two channels or is this one channel. I find that non-PAP and non-CHAP connections are abysmal. On my BSPro (with 1H firware) I get about 10KB/s with 115200, with 230400 baud, I get about 13.7Kb/s. This is the effective rate, I don't know what the bit rate is (encapsulation and all that ya know).
I am running 2.2.0e and 2.2.0f (on the other system), the system that I usually measure ISDN performance on is a 133Mhz 486. It has kernel 1.3.97, the kernel one the other system 1.99.9
It should work. I would be surprised to see that the P6 is the problem, but I would also be surprised that the P6 is going to help get you over 13.7KB/s. There is encapsulation overhead everywhere. It will cost in terms of bit bandwidth and processing time.
--- Ed Welbon; welbon@bga.com; http://www.bga.com/~welbon/spider.html
| |