Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Billionton bluetooth CF card: performance is 10KB/sec | From | Marcel Holtmann <> | Date | Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:32:21 +0200 |
| |
Hi Pavel,
> Ping time is around 50msec, and that seems pretty much okay, but > 10KB/sec seems like way too low. > > I am limited to 10KB/sec both on linux-to-linux bnetp transfers and it > limits my transfer rates using edge and n6230, too :-(.
so you say that the Nokia 6230 has PAN Profile support and you don't need any PPP crap to get Internet access? This would be the first phone I have seen so far.
> Ping times during transfer: > > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=149 ttl=64 time=62.8 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=150 ttl=64 time=64.2 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=151 ttl=64 time=85.9 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=152 ttl=64 time=80.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=153 ttl=64 time=132.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=154 ttl=64 time=64.8 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=155 ttl=64 time=128.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=156 ttl=64 time=116.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=157 ttl=64 time=120.5 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=158 ttl=64 time=240.2 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=159 ttl=64 time=111.2 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=160 ttl=64 time=382.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=161 ttl=64 time=912.6 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=162 ttl=64 time=1612.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=163 ttl=64 time=4373.6 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=164 ttl=64 time=5128.8 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=165 ttl=64 time=7191.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=166 ttl=64 time=9473.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=167 ttl=64 time=8469.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=168 ttl=64 time=10040.7 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=169 ttl=64 time=9036.7 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=170 ttl=64 time=10681.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=171 ttl=64 time=9677.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=172 ttl=64 time=8673.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=173 ttl=64 time=10685.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=174 ttl=64 time=9681.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=175 ttl=64 time=8677.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=176 ttl=64 time=11997.2 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=177 ttl=64 time=10993.4 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=178 ttl=64 time=9989.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=179 ttl=64 time=13797.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=180 ttl=64 time=12793.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=181 ttl=64 time=11789.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=182 ttl=64 time=10784.9 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=183 ttl=64 time=9781.1 ms
The initial pings look good, the rest is very bad.
> Netdev watchdog complains a lot: > > Oct 22 18:53:57 amd pand[2439]: Bluetooth PAN daemon version 2.19 > Oct 22 18:53:57 amd pand[2439]: Connecting to <won't tell you> > Oct 22 18:53:58 amd pand[2439]: bnep0 connected > Oct 22 18:54:37 amd kernel: usb 3-1: USB disconnect, address 2 > Oct 22 18:55:33 amd kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: bnep0: transmit timed out > Oct 22 18:55:59 amd last message repeated 2 times > Oct 22 18:56:51 amd last message repeated 5 times > Oct 22 18:57:55 amd last message repeated 3 times > Oct 22 18:59:03 amd last message repeated 7 times
The transmit timeouts shouldn't be there. The question is now which side is at fault. The host or the phone?
Please do a "hcitool info <won't tell you>" as root so I can see which what chip we are dealing. Also "hciconfig hci0 version" for your card would help.
You can also use "hcidump -X -V" to analyze the traffic.
Regards
Marcel
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |