Ray,
Thank for your reply,

> The only ready way I know of to test the speed of a connection is to try
to
> do a large transfer over it ... usually, I find an ftp transfer to be the
> handiest test. This can be difficult when you do not control hosts at both
> ends of the link you want to test, but you still want to find some
> approximation of this approach.

may you advice me how 'large' the file should used for my 1Mbps or 2Mbps
connections speed? it is just okay with 10MB file transfer or it's still not
_large_ enough? i could setup the ftp server at main office and branches
office so i could test it from main office to branches office and vice
versa. Is there any standard way for file size transfer to accurate the
speed test?

> you want to be as "close" as you can to your LAN (don't to a download
> that involves multiple satellite hops from the opposite hemisphere); and
> you want to be sure that the upload source serves fast enough that it will
> not limit connection speed.

I thinks this is the hardies part, even if i setup the ftp server at
branches office, it still get about 7-9 hops to reach main office LAN and of
course i was using a diffrent ISP for the branches and main office. At main
office the connections was 2Mbps Up and Down lease line, while on the
branches office, i use 1.5 Up and Down SDSL line. And both running Bering
Uclibc 2.1 as the router.

> Beyond that ... when you say "i'm experiance a slow connections", what are
> you actually observing? Anything other than the Web-page problem you
> describe? Although you say "this 2Mbps are slower than 1Mbps that i
> subcsibe before", that doesn't tell me what tests you are using now.

i know this wasn't accurate and reliable, but i thinks it will gave me some
point to consider, for the temporary test, i using a mcafee speedometer test
at http://us.mcafee.com/root/speedometer.asp . Before i upgrade the line, i
get an average between 500 to 600Kbps but after i upgrade the line, i get an
average between 100 to 400Kbps. How i'm doing the test, i test the
connections about 50 times, plus all the results and divide by 50. Maybe i
should do more in the next time and still, i dont thinks this was the best
way to test the speed, that why i try to _asking_ an expert here for
_advice_ on how i could do the speed test more reliablely.

>          1. Revert to the prior router configuration and see if it makes a
> difference.

This one i couldn't do, it's because of my stupidity not to let the system
there until everything is in _safe_ enviroment. Dont worry, i get my lesson.
Next time i will not do it agains. ( i had format the hdd for used by bering
Uclibc 2.1 )

>          2. Connect a host directly to the Internet over the external
> connection and see if that makes a difference.

I will do it and post the result.

> As to your Web-page problem ...
>
> When you changed Bering version, did you make any hardware changes?
> Anything that might involve IRQ sharing, for example?

nope, everyhing is intact, same hardware.

> Does "ip -s link show" indicate any appreciable error rate on any relevant
> interface?

firewall# ip -s link show
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    116732     609      0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    116732     609      0       0       0       0
2: dummy0: <BROADCAST,NOARP> mtu 1500 qdisc noop
    link/ether 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    0          0        0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    0          0        0       0       0       0
3: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:ba:8b:a5:8b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    4069916371 27729227 0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    987425360  27738726 0       0       0       0
4: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:ba:8b:9d:e1 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    1365940907 5154550  0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    2404106526 5387073  0       0       0       0
5: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:ba:8b:a1:81 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    2403556726 31588934 0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    864598083  30116000 0       0       0       637898
6: eth3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:04:ac:6e:52:b8 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    3229811836 726754647 0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    310837687  6346146  0       0       0       2149416
firewall#

> What NICs and drivers are involved? (I see 2 NIC modules listed, but which
> is external, which internal ... and did that change?)

firewall# lsmod
Module                  Size  Used by    Not tainted
sd_mod                 10300   0 (unused)
scsi_mod               53960   1 [sd_mod]
usb-uhci               21352   0 (unused)
usbcore                55904   1 [usb-uhci]
softdog                 1508   1
ip_nat_irc              2128   0 (unused)
ip_nat_ftp              2736   0 (unused)
ip_conntrack_irc        2864   1
ip_conntrack_ftp        3472   1
eepro100               18024   1
8139too                11624   3
mii                     2108   0 [8139too]
pci-scan                3512   1 [eepro100]
crc32                   2648   0 [8139too]
ext2                   31776   0 (unused)
vfat                    9036   0 (unused)
ide-detect               144   0 (unused)
ide-disk               12492   0
ide-core               88752   0 [ide-detect ide-disk]
firewall#

eth0 - 8139too - staff network
eth1 - 8139too - proxyarp interface to dmz network
eth2 - 8139too - proxyarp interface connected to internet
eth3 - eepro100 - student network

no change had make, every things as before and working as before except for
the problem describe.

> Did you make any changes in the DNS configuration when you moved to Bering
> 2.1, or when you changed Internet service?

I just move from dnscache to dnsmasq but the upstream dns still reffer to
the same one. I will try to change back to dnscache and see the results.

> Is the problem with images a general one or is it limited to specific Web
> pages? Details may matter here ... for example, if the images come from a
> very different URL than the main page, you may be seeing a DNS timeout
(the
> images eventually load because the DNS request eventually resolves). But
> this is just a wild guess, offered more to indicate the value of your
> attending to the details of what does not load proprely.

The problem was a general one, even if i browse my own web site which sit at
the dmz network from my local LAN still have this problem. For other site,
it took an age to finnished loading the whole page espeacialy if the page
have a lot of images :( i feel like i'm using an old 22.8Kbps dial-up modem.
:(

> What else to report? Try ...
>
>          output of "ip -s link show"

firewall# ip -s link show
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    116732     609      0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    116732     609      0       0       0       0
2: dummy0: <BROADCAST,NOARP> mtu 1500 qdisc noop
    link/ether 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    0          0        0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    0          0        0       0       0       0
3: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:ba:8b:a5:8b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    4114862968 27895805 0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    1056572371 27897499 0       0       0       0
4: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:ba:8b:9d:e1 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    1376984147 5211956  0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    2410817147 5443657  0       0       0       0
5: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:50:ba:8b:a1:81 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    2490566907 31724806 0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    912788377  30253336 0       0       0       640662
6: eth3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:04:ac:6e:52:b8 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
    3235123229 726785508 0       0       0       0
    TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
    334724524  6377061  0       0       0       2150757
firewall#

>          output of "more /proc/interrupts"

firewall# more /proc/interrupts
           CPU0
  0:   61273346          XT-PIC  timer
  1:       4609          XT-PIC  keyboard
  2:          0          XT-PIC  cascade
  5:   61984685          XT-PIC  eth2
  8:          0          XT-PIC  rtc
  9:   10630745          XT-PIC  eth1
 10:   53851783          XT-PIC  eth0
 11:  733084316          XT-PIC  usb-uhci, eth3
 14:       4802          XT-PIC  ide0
 15:          1          XT-PIC  ide1
NMI:          0
ERR:          0
firewall#

If the report is still lacking of info, please ask me for more since i dont
know which part is the best presented and i dont want to mess the list with
unused of garbage info.

Thanks In Advances

Regards,
zamri

*----------------------------------------------------------------*
i dont held any responsible with anything below than this line and it's
was beyong my control and knowledge. - zamri -
*----------------------------------------------------------------*



The content of this email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of individual or entity to whom they are address and may 
be privileged. If you are not the intended receipient or if you have received it in 
error, please do not read, use, print, copy, forward or distribute the content or 
disclose it to anyone. Instead, please inform the sender by return email or telephone 
and please delete it or any copy of it from your system immediately. Opinions, 
conclusions and other informations in this messages that do not relate to the official 
businness of PTPL Group Of Companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed 
by PTPL SDN. BHD.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband
Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest
6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click
------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html

Reply via email to