Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Robert Chambers]

I wonder how much of a difference ISA to PCI makes in speed?   I have noticed on both Eigerstein2beta and Dachstein with PPPoE I keep getting the message " pppoe uses obsolete (PF_INET, SOCK_PACKET).  Anything I should be concerned with?

Kenneth Hadley wrote:

026401c187fe$f9558960$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">

To tell the truth I'm not sure exactly why I saw such a dramatic speed
boost.
When my total incoming bandwidth reached 1mbit (and usually not much
further) I saw CPU usage on my AMD583-133 reach 70% typically but this was
with a 3com 3c509b ISA card on the WAN side (eth0) and a NetGear 310tx PCI
on the LAN side (eth1)
After upgrading to a P200MMX system with a 3com 3c905 PCI on the WAN side
and a NetGear 310tx PCI on the LAN side I saw bandwidth reach 1670mbit
(which is faster than should be possiable on my DSL circuit) with a CPU
usage of 35%.
I have received emails from folks saying that they had also noticed much
faster downloads after upgrading their boxes to Pentium machines.
One thing I remember about standard 802.3 ethernet TCP segment sizes are
that they are 1460 while PPPoE TCP segment sizes are 1452, the end result is
that if you do not enable the "-m 1452" option in the Roaring Penguin PPPoE
client (and it
 IS on by default) you will be wasting packets. This
conversion that the PPPoE client does consumes CPU cycles in addition to the
normal Ethernet to PPP encapsulation.

fun fun fun

-Kenneth Hadley


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul Rimmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "leaf"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kenneth Hadley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

The little 486DLC-40 that I have limits my downloads to about 538kbps on
my DSL connection.  According to Ken, anything less then a 486DX4 100
you will notice a speed dive.  It has to do with the way PPP sends the
packets.  On the receiving end the cpu must recombine the packets which
is where the performance issues come into play.  A faster processor will
recombine the packets faster.
I also find this interesting in that upgrading from a AMD586-133 to an
Intel P200MMX there is a noticable speed difference.  Is it because of
the increase in clock speed or differences between AMD and Intel?  Which
I am not sure of.
Robert Chambers

Paul Rimmer wrote:

Or just upgrade to a low end pentium...since a 486 WILL lag after
a 1mbit of
DSL traffic ( I upgraded at home from a AMD586-133 to a Intel P200MMX
(overkill but it was just collecting dust) and it shocked me how
quicker my
downloads became)

-Kenneth Hadley

This really suprises me.  I was under the impression that a 486/66 would

be

able to service a maxed out cable modem?  I happen to be using a 486/66

on a

cable connection but will upgrade if it will help throughput.

Any comments on 486 vs Pentium servicing a cable or ADSL modem?

Cheers,
Paul


_______________________________________________
Leaf-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user