Re: Ethernet Performance Problem Solved
On 9/6/2022 5:00 PM, Marc Auslander wrote: I have an Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8101/2/6E PCI Express Fast/Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02) Subsystem: Acer Incorporated [ALI] RTL810xE PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller There is also a Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 8161 (rev 15) Subsystem: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 8168 100BaseT not being used. lspci -v says the driver is R8169 for both. firmware-realtek is installed and does not appear to provide R8169 but I'm a novice about these things. The cable leading to the debian computer, when connected to a different computer, runs at almost 1000 Mb according to iperf3. When talking to Debian Buster it runs about 100Mb give or take. ethtool says its running Speed: 1000Mb/s Duplex: Full I just noticed this - in the past it ran at 1000Mb/s rates. It may have happened when I recently went from squeeze to buster, but I can't be sure of that. Any suggestion on how to proceed. I have used iptables to go dark to probes of my machine. I had about 10,000 entries. Apparently, now that is is deprecated, it's gotten a whole lot lest efficient in Buster. Clearing the iptables made the issue go away. Now to figure out nftables.
Re: Ethernet Performance Problem
Marc Auslander wrote: > I have an Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8101/2/6E PCI Express > Fast/Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02) Subsystem: Acer Incorporated [ALI] > RTL810xE PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller > > There is also a Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 8161 (rev 15) > Subsystem: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 8168 100BaseT not > being used. > > lspci -v says the driver is R8169 for both. > > firmware-realtek is installed and does not appear to provide R8169 but I'm a > novice about these things. > > The cable leading to the debian computer, when connected to a different > computer, runs at almost 1000 Mb according to iperf3. > > When talking to Debian Buster it runs about 100Mb give or take. > > ethtool says its running Speed: 1000Mb/s Duplex: Full > > I just noticed this - in the past it ran at 1000Mb/s rates. It may have > happened when I recently went from squeeze to buster, but I can't be sure of > that. Please give us names for the computers in question so we know where the problem lies. Is it one computer which changes depending on whether it is booted into buster or bullseye? iperf3 is a pretty good measure of actual data transfer. If it works at 1000Mb/s for most things, but drops to 100Mb/s for a particular one, suspect the particular device, not the general one. -dsr-
Re: A correct version follows. Ethernet Performance Problem
Please ignore this - a correct description follows. On 9/6/2022 4:30 PM, Marc Auslander wrote: I have an Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8101/2/6E PCI Express Fast/Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02) lsmod says the driver is Realtek. firmware-realtek is installed The cable leading to it, when connected to a different computer, runs at almost 1000 Mb according to iperf3. When taking to Debian Buster it runs about 100Mb give or take. ethtool says its running Speed: 1000Mb/s Duplex: Full I just noticed this - in the past it ran at 1000Mb/s rates. It may have happened when I recently went from squeeze to buster, but I can't be sure of that. Any suggestion on how to proceed.
Ethernet Performance Problem
I have an Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8101/2/6E PCI Express Fast/Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02) Subsystem: Acer Incorporated [ALI] RTL810xE PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller There is also a Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 8161 (rev 15) Subsystem: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device 8168 100BaseT not being used. lspci -v says the driver is R8169 for both. firmware-realtek is installed and does not appear to provide R8169 but I'm a novice about these things. The cable leading to the debian computer, when connected to a different computer, runs at almost 1000 Mb according to iperf3. When talking to Debian Buster it runs about 100Mb give or take. ethtool says its running Speed: 1000Mb/s Duplex: Full I just noticed this - in the past it ran at 1000Mb/s rates. It may have happened when I recently went from squeeze to buster, but I can't be sure of that. Any suggestion on how to proceed.
Ethernet Performance Problem
I have an Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8101/2/6E PCI Express Fast/Gigabit Ethernet controller (rev 02) lsmod says the driver is Realtek. firmware-realtek is installed The cable leading to it, when connected to a different computer, runs at almost 1000 Mb according to iperf3. When taking to Debian Buster it runs about 100Mb give or take. ethtool says its running Speed: 1000Mb/s Duplex: Full I just noticed this - in the past it ran at 1000Mb/s rates. It may have happened when I recently went from squeeze to buster, but I can't be sure of that. Any suggestion on how to proceed.
Re: Tulip ethernet performance issues
On Sun, May 28, 2000 at 12:53:32PM +1000, Damon Muller wrote > Hi gang, > > I know that this has come up on the list recently, but I haven't really > seen anything that has helped me solve this little problem. > > I have a couple of tulip-based ethernet cards (I think they are made by > Acton, and may certainly be re-badged), one in my Debian box and one in > my win98 box. They are connected together by an 8-port 10/100 switch > (specifically a LanTech MINI Switch 800 (8 port 10/100 Base-TX Switch) > according to the front panel). > > The performance that I'm getting through this network is significantly > less than I'd be expecting. In fact, it seems to be slower than the 10M > hub that I had previously. > > I've just transfered a fairly large file from my Linux machine to my > Win98 machine using the Win98 FTP client (the console based one), and > here is what it said when it finished: > > 370238462 bytes recieved in 1872.52 secs 197.72 Kbytes/sec. > > With only 2 pcs, both with 10/100 tulip cards, over a 100M switch, I > would have expected a much better transfer rate. (there is nothing else > connected to the switch). > > Here are some diagnostics: > > Linux rei 2.2.15 #1 Fri May 5 18:30:12 EST 2000 i586 unknown > > tulip-diag.c:v1.19 10/2/99 Donald Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Index #1: Found a Digital DS21143 Tulip adapter at 0x6c00. > Port selection is 100mbps-SYM/PCS 100baseTx scrambler, full-duplex. > Transmit started, Receive started, full-duplex. > The Rx process state is 'Waiting for packets'. > The Tx process state is 'Idle'. > The transmit unit is set to store-and-forward. > The NWay status register is 41e1d2cd. > Internal autonegotiation state is 'Negotiation complete'. > Use '-a' or '-aa' to show device registers, > '-e' to show EEPROM contents, -ee for parsed contents, > or '-m' or '-mm' to show MII management registers. > > >CPU0 > 0: 460597 XT-PIC timer > 1: 10326 XT-PIC keyboard > 2: 0 XT-PIC cascade > 4: 5129 XT-PIC serial > 5: 6112 XT-PIC soundblaster > 8: 1 XT-PIC rtc > 10: 286851 XT-PIC eth0 > 12: 8685 XT-PIC aic7xxx > 13: 1 XT-PIC fpu > 14: 151229 XT-PIC ide0 > 15: 738283 XT-PIC ide1 > NMI: 0 > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:40:C7:9A:01:5F > inet addr:192.168.13.1 Bcast:192.168.13.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:181175 errors:80 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:81 > TX packets:259454 errors:12590 dropped:0 overruns:4 carrier:12586 > collisions:820 txqueuelen:100 > Interrupt:10 Base address:0x6c00 > > > Particularly worrying, I guess, is the error, collisions, etc on the > ethernet card (I had rebooted just before this large transfer). On my > machine at work, with has a 3Com 509 which is also attached to a switch, > with 3.5million packets transfered, there has not been a single error or > collision (There should never be a collision with a switch, should > there? I though that was the idea!). > > Can anyone suggest any possible solutions? Is it likely the card is > dodgy (it worked fine, and fast with a 100M hub that I had, but I > couldn't attach my laptop to that, as it only had a 10M pcmcia card), or > might it be an interaction between the card and the hub? Is it work > shelling out for a new card? > You should take a long, hard look at your cables. At 100M cables that work fine at 10M can turn your data to mush. Verify that they are "genuine" CAT5, and if you have the opportunity verify that they give satisfactory performance at 100M with different gear; even if the cable is CAT5, poor terminations or connectors can kill them. John P. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin & support:technical services
Re: Tulip ethernet performance issues
On Sun, 28 May 2000, Damon Muller wrote: > I have a couple of tulip-based ethernet cards (I think they are made by > Acton, and may certainly be re-badged), one in my Debian box and one in > my win98 box. They are connected together by an 8-port 10/100 switch > (specifically a LanTech MINI Switch 800 (8 port 10/100 Base-TX Switch) > according to the front panel). I've seen this before. The tulip cards are just horrible at NWAY for some reason. Either they get stuck in half duplex or the switch gets stuck in half duplex and you get the problem you saw. I've never actually had a tulip automatically negotiate full duplex with a switch :< You can try using the media type forcing options when you install the module, check Becker's web page for information. The carrier+etc errors are your problem, you want to eliminate those. Jason
Tulip ethernet performance issues
Hi gang, I know that this has come up on the list recently, but I haven't really seen anything that has helped me solve this little problem. I have a couple of tulip-based ethernet cards (I think they are made by Acton, and may certainly be re-badged), one in my Debian box and one in my win98 box. They are connected together by an 8-port 10/100 switch (specifically a LanTech MINI Switch 800 (8 port 10/100 Base-TX Switch) according to the front panel). The performance that I'm getting through this network is significantly less than I'd be expecting. In fact, it seems to be slower than the 10M hub that I had previously. I've just transfered a fairly large file from my Linux machine to my Win98 machine using the Win98 FTP client (the console based one), and here is what it said when it finished: 370238462 bytes recieved in 1872.52 secs 197.72 Kbytes/sec. With only 2 pcs, both with 10/100 tulip cards, over a 100M switch, I would have expected a much better transfer rate. (there is nothing else connected to the switch). Here are some diagnostics: Linux rei 2.2.15 #1 Fri May 5 18:30:12 EST 2000 i586 unknown tulip-diag.c:v1.19 10/2/99 Donald Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Index #1: Found a Digital DS21143 Tulip adapter at 0x6c00. Port selection is 100mbps-SYM/PCS 100baseTx scrambler, full-duplex. Transmit started, Receive started, full-duplex. The Rx process state is 'Waiting for packets'. The Tx process state is 'Idle'. The transmit unit is set to store-and-forward. The NWay status register is 41e1d2cd. Internal autonegotiation state is 'Negotiation complete'. Use '-a' or '-aa' to show device registers, '-e' to show EEPROM contents, -ee for parsed contents, or '-m' or '-mm' to show MII management registers. CPU0 0: 460597 XT-PIC timer 1: 10326 XT-PIC keyboard 2: 0 XT-PIC cascade 4: 5129 XT-PIC serial 5: 6112 XT-PIC soundblaster 8: 1 XT-PIC rtc 10: 286851 XT-PIC eth0 12: 8685 XT-PIC aic7xxx 13: 1 XT-PIC fpu 14: 151229 XT-PIC ide0 15: 738283 XT-PIC ide1 NMI: 0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:40:C7:9A:01:5F inet addr:192.168.13.1 Bcast:192.168.13.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:181175 errors:80 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:81 TX packets:259454 errors:12590 dropped:0 overruns:4 carrier:12586 collisions:820 txqueuelen:100 Interrupt:10 Base address:0x6c00 Particularly worrying, I guess, is the error, collisions, etc on the ethernet card (I had rebooted just before this large transfer). On my machine at work, with has a 3Com 509 which is also attached to a switch, with 3.5million packets transfered, there has not been a single error or collision (There should never be a collision with a switch, should there? I though that was the idea!). Can anyone suggest any possible solutions? Is it likely the card is dodgy (it worked fine, and fast with a 100M hub that I had, but I couldn't attach my laptop to that, as it only had a 10M pcmcia card), or might it be an interaction between the card and the hub? Is it work shelling out for a new card? Any advice would be appreciated! cheers, damon -- Damon Muller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) / It's not a sense of humor. * Criminologist / It's a sense of irony * Webmeister / disguised as one. * Linux Geek / - Bruce Sterling - Running Debian GNU/Linux: Doing my bit for World Domination (tm) - pgpk9werSA4zY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ethernet performance.
On Apr 17, R. Chris Ross wrote > > I am quite new at the world of IP networks and have been doing > some testing on a Debian 1.2 system and Free BSD. Last night I ran a > test as described in one of the ethernet FAQs by running FTP on a > file that was ~2.5Meg the rate came out at 1.09M/sec. From what I > can tell this is quite good for 10 Base2 since this indicates a rate > around 8Mbit/sec of data not including overhead. With no tuning at > all it is supprising to get proformance on this order or am I faking > my self out? The numbers above do not look right: The theoretical throughput on 10base2 is about 1.183 Mbytes/sec. This number assumes some rather ideal conditions: one ACK for 22 large 1460 byte segments, no collisions, the minimun inter-packet gap of 9.6 ms, 64k windows, and no delays for either sender or receiver transitions (that is no TCP/IP delays). throughput = (22*1460bytes)/(22*1538+84bytes) * (10,000 bits/sec)/(8bits/sec) = = 1,183,667 bytes/sec -- Ioannis Tambouras [EMAIL PROTECTED], West Palm Beach, Florida Signed pgp-key on key server. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Ethernet performance.
I am quite new at the world of IP networks and have been doing some testing on a Debian 1.2 system and Free BSD. Last night I ran a test as described in one of the ethernet FAQs by running FTP on a file that was ~2.5Meg the rate came out at 1.09M/sec. From what I can tell this is quite good for 10 Base2 since this indicates a rate around 8Mbit/sec of data not including overhead. With no tuning at all it is supprising to get proformance on this order or am I faking my self out? Debian running on a pentium 133 Mhz 32Meg RAM as server. FreeBSD running on 486SLC 25 MHz 8 Meg RAM. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
