Hi pyun!
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:08:49 -0700
Pyun YongHyeon <pyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > patched: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> bge
> > 60Mbps, 60Mbps, 25Mbps
> > patched: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> rl
> > 90Mbps, 60Mbps, 40Mbps
> > old: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> bge
> > 180Mbps, 90Mbps, 95Mbps
> > old: AX88178, AX88172, AX88772 <-> re
> > 180Mbps, 90Mbps, 95Mbps
> I'm not sure I understood the test environment.
> But it looks un-patched axe(4) performs better, right?
Yes. I think that these are strange.
> One odd thing is performance differences for AX88172. My patch does
> not touch AX88172 controller but your benchmark shows big
> differences for AX88172. Are you sure you didn't apply other
> patches for axe(4)/USB stack? Ehh, I was wrong, there was a change
No I don't apply any patch to axe/usb.
> for AX88172. The bufsize was changed to 16KB from 2KB for AX88172,
> that was not my intention. It seems new USB stack has no easy way
> to configure this parameter in attach phase so I used 16KB. Would
> you try changing the value to MCLBYTES(aorund line number 208 in
> patched if_axe.c) and test it on AX88172?
I'll try, please wait a while.
> Also please let me know what netperf parameters were used in the
> test.
Simple-fully, it's all default.
Server: netserver
Client: netperf -H Server
> > Ummmm, I'll try to update old(rl) machine to pached, and re-test.
> > Thank you.
> It seems you have all three variants that axe(4) supports, so would
> you test "http://p4db.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=168602";?
Yes, too!
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-usb-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
