RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Richard Doyle]

The 486 dlc was an odd beast without an fpu. You need a kernel
with built-in 387 emulation.

-Richard

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Robert
> Chambers
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:22 PM
> To: leaf
> Subject: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE
>
>
> Is there a minimum cpu requirement for Dachstein?
> Since I was using a
> Windows machine to extract the file and create the
> floppy disk, I booted
> the floppy in the Windows machine which is a PII 400
> mhz and configured
> Dachstein for my connection.  When I booted my LRP
> machine with the
> Dachstein disk it stopped at "loading Linux".  My Lrp
> machine is a 486
> DLC - 40.
>
>  I know I know I need to upgrade my LRP at least to a
> Pentium.  Ken
> Hadley and I have talked about the PPPoE download
> speed being limited by
> the speed of the cpu. :-[
> Robert Chambers
>
>
> ___
> Leaf-user mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
>


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

Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Robert Chambers]

Must be a newer kernel for Dachstein.  The Eigerstein2 beta with PPPoE from
Ken ran great on the 486dlc.

Richard Doyle wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
  The 486 dlc was an odd beast without an fpu. You need a kernelwith built-in 387 emulation.-Richard
  
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]OnBehalf Of RobertChambersSent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:22 PMTo: leafSubject: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoEIs there a minimum cpu requirement for Dachstein?Since I was using aWindows machine to extract the file and create thefloppy disk, I bootedthe floppy in the Windows machine which is a PII 400mhz and configuredDachstein for my connection.  When I booted my LRPmachine with theDachstein disk it stopped at "loading Linux".  My Lrpmachine is a 486DLC - 40. I know I know I need to upgrade my LRP at least to aPentium.  KenHadley and I have talked about the PPPoE d
ownloadspeed being limited bythe speed of the cpu. :-[Robert Chambers___Leaf-user mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user

Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Kenneth Hadley]

If memory serves me (which is very rarely) a 486dlc chip was made by IBM and
it was well known during the early 90's (when I got into PC repair) that
both the Cyrix and IBM clone 486's where not quiet as "cloned" as IBM/Cyrix
wanted you to believe (same thing as today with the AMD vs. Intel war...but
it was a IBM vs. Cyrix vs. AMD vs. Intel war at the time)
I think Charles is using the DachStein-Small kernel for the floppy image and
in which case its compiled for 486 without FPU compiled into the kernel
(which I think a 486DLC had no FPU).
If you want to compile a kernel that might work vist Charles's site
(http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/cstein/files/kernels/Dachstein-small/)
and give adding FPU to the kernel a shot or even droping the kernel into 386
w/FPU might help.
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


- Original Message -
From: "Robert Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Richard Doyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "leaf"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE


> Must be a newer kernel for Dachstein.  The Eigerstein2 beta with PPPoE
> from Ken ran great on the 486dlc.
>
> Richard Doyle wrote:
>
> >The 486 dlc was an odd beast without an fpu. You need a kernel
> >with built-in 387 emulation.
> >
> >-Richard
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> >>Behalf Of Robert
> >>Chambers
> >>Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:22 PM
> >>To: leaf
> >>Subject: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE
> >>
> >>
> >>Is there a minimum cpu requirement for Dachstein?
> >>Since I was using a
> >>Windows machine to extract the file and create the
> >>floppy disk, I booted
> >>the floppy in the Windows machine which is a PII 400
> >>mhz and configured
> >>Dachstein for my connection.  When I booted my LRP
> >>machine with the
> >>Dachstein disk it stopped at "loading Linux".  My Lrp
> >>machine is a 486
> >>DLC - 40.
> >>
> >> I know I know I need to upgrade my LRP at least to a
> >>Pentium.  Ken
> >>Hadley and I have talked about the PPPoE download
> >>speed being limited by
> >>the speed of the cpu. :-[
> >>Robert Chambers
> >>
> >>
> >>___
> >>Leaf-user mailing list
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


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

RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Paul Rimmer]

> 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

RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Michael Leone]

On Mon, 2001-12-17 at 20:09, Paul Rimmer wrote:
> 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?

Sure. It's not the processor; it's the bus speed that is a limiting
factor. I use a P90 (with PCI bus) on a 640Kb ADSL line; I routinely
average 62KB (that equates to 620Kb) downloads.


-- 

--
Michael J. Leone  Registered Linux user #201348 
ICQ: 50453890 AIM: MikeLeone

PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF
PGP public key:


Foreman, roving paving crew, Dept. of Roads, Hades.



msg02747/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Ray Olszewski]

At 08:31 PM 12/17/01 -0500, Michael Leone wrote:
>On Mon, 2001-12-17 at 20:09, Paul Rimmer wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Sure. It's not the processor; it's the bus speed that is a limiting
>factor. I use a P90 (with PCI bus) on a 640Kb ADSL line; I routinely
>average 62KB (that equates to 620Kb) downloads.

Well ... sort of. Kenneth's original comment was about speeds over 1 Mbps,
not 640 Kbps. In practice, a 486 with a 10 Mbps NIC will run, flat out at
around 5 Mbps ... I've tested this many times with direct E-to-E routing
between LANs, and docs on a former Don Becker site reported the same thing
as the bus limitation. That's plenty to keep up with 1 Mbps.

But Kenneth's experience is probably with routers running on PPPoE
connections. This extra layer of encapsulation (of a PPP frame inside an
Ethernet frame) requires extra CPU cycles, and that starts to become a
problem on 486s when the base speed gets high. I don't myself know what a
PPPoE link maxes out at with a 486 router, but I'd trust Kenneth's
experience here.

Cable never (that I know of) uses PPPoE, and not all DSL lines do (mine
doesn't, for example). For them, a 486 should be able to handle T1 speeds
(1.5 Mbps) easily.


--
"Never tell me the odds!"---
Ray Olszewski-- Han Solo
Palo Alto, CA[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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

RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Michael Leone]

On Mon, 2001-12-17 at 20:51, Ray Olszewski wrote:
>
> Cable never (that I know of) uses PPPoE, and not all DSL lines do (mine
> doesn't, for example). For them, a 486 should be able to handle T1 speeds
> (1.5 Mbps) easily.

It's not the line that dictates PPPOE; it's the ISP. I have Verizon as a
line provider, and my ISP does not use PPPOE. When I had Verizon as an
ISP (as well as line provider), I *did* have to use PPPOE. This is over
the same line; I just switched the Internet servicing from Verizon to
DCA.NET.

-- 

--
Michael J. Leone  Registered Linux user #201348 
ICQ: 50453890 AIM: MikeLeone

PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF
PGP public key:


Foreman, roving paving crew, Dept. of Roads, Hades.



msg02749/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Ray Olszewski]

At 08:54 PM 12/17/01 -0500, Michael Leone wrote:
>On Mon, 2001-12-17 at 20:51, Ray Olszewski wrote:
>>
>> Cable never (that I know of) uses PPPoE, and not all DSL lines do (mine
>> doesn't, for example). For them, a 486 should be able to handle T1 speeds
>> (1.5 Mbps) easily.
>
>It's not the line that dictates PPPOE; it's the ISP. I have Verizon as a
>line provider, and my ISP does not use PPPOE. When I had Verizon as an
>ISP (as well as line provider), I *did* have to use PPPOE. This is over
>the same line; I just switched the Internet servicing from Verizon to
>DCA.NET.

It's even more complicated than that, in that some ISPs (mine, as an
example) offer both types of service -- static and PPPoE/dynamic. That said,
I ONLY see PPPoE in connection with DSL, never with cable ... if someone has
experience with a cable service (or any service other than DSL) that uses
PPPoE, I'd be interested in reading about it.


--
"Never tell me the odds!"---
Ray Olszewski-- Han Solo
Palo Alto, CA[EMAIL PROTECTED]



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

Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Robert Chambers]

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:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
  
Or just upgrade to a low end pentium...since a 486 WILL lag aftera 1mbit ofDSL traffic ( I upgraded at home from a AMD586-133 to a Intel P200MMX(overkill but it was just collecting dust) and it shocked me howquicker mydownloads became)-Kenneth Hadley

This really suprises me.  I was under the impression that a 486/66 would beable to service a maxed out cable modem?  I happen to be using a 486/66 on acable 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

RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Simon Bolduc]

Running a 486/66 on a cable line - my router does 3mb/s without a hitch - 
mind you I only ever see about 300KB/s max (instead of the 375KB/s I should 
- but that has nothing to do with the router).  Math below is wrong BTW 
(sorry to be picky).  1 byte = 8 bits thus  62KB/s would equate to 496kb/s

S


>From: Michael Leone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Paul Rimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: Kenneth Hadley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, LEAF-User 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE
>Date: 17 Dec 2001 20:31:02 -0500
>
>On Mon, 2001-12-17 at 20:09, Paul Rimmer wrote:
> > 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?
>
>Sure. It's not the processor; it's the bus speed that is a limiting
>factor. I use a P90 (with PCI bus) on a 640Kb ADSL line; I routinely
>average 62KB (that equates to 620Kb) downloads.
>
>
>--
>
>--
>Michael J. Leone  Registered Linux user #201348
><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>ICQ: 50453890 AIM: MikeLeone
>
>PGP Fingerprint: 0AA8 DC47 CB63 AE3F C739 6BF9 9AB4 1EF6 5AA5 BCDF
>PGP public key:
><http://www.mike-leone.com/~turgon/turgon-public-key.gpg>
>
>Foreman, roving paving crew, Dept. of Roads, Hades.
><< attach3 >>




_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


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

Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Kenneth Hadley]

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
> >
> >
>
>


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

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 speedboost.When my total incoming bandwidth reached 1mbit (and usually not muchfurther) I saw CPU usage on my AMD583-133 reach 70% typically but this waswith a 3com 3c509b ISA card on the WAN side (eth0) and a NetGear 310tx PCIon the LAN side (eth1)After upgrading to a P200MMX system with a 3com 3c905 PCI on the WAN sideand 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 CPUusage of 35%.I have received emails from folks saying that they had also noticed muchfaster downloads after upgrading their boxes to Pentium machines.One thing I remember about standard 802.3 ethernet TCP segment sizes arethat they are 1460 while PPPoE TCP segment sizes are 1452, the end result isthat if you do not enable the "-m 1452" option in the Roaring Penguin PPPoEclient (and it
 IS on by default) you will be wasting packets. Thisconversion that the PPPoE client does consumes CPU cycles in addition to thenormal 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 PMSubject: Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE
  
The little 486DLC-40 that I have limits my downloads to about 538kbps onmy DSL connection.  According to Ken, anything less then a 486DX4 100you will notice a speed dive.  It has to do with the way PPP sends thepackets.  On the receiving end the cpu must recombine the packets whichis where the performance issues come into play.  A faster processor willrecombine the packets faster.I also find this interesting in that upgrading from a AMD586-133 to anIntel P200MMX there is a noticable speed difference.  Is it because ofthe increase in clock speed or differences between AMD and Intel?  WhichI am not sure of.Robert ChambersPaul Rimmer wrote:

  
Or just upgrade to a low end pentium...since a 486 WILL lag aftera 1mbit ofDSL traffic ( I upgraded at home from a AMD586-133 to a Intel P200MMX(overkill but it was just collecting dust) and it shocked me howquicker mydownloads 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

Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Kenneth Hadley]

If I remember correctly "pppoe uses obsolete (PF_INET, SOCK_PACKET)" is just
warning that happens with the older version of the PPPoE client that is
available for LEAF, the error basically means nothing.
Theoretically since we are dealing with less than 5mbit of traffic a ISA
card is should be proficent in most cases, as long as one remembers that any
NE2000 compatable cards typically wont cant get close to 5mbit and tend to
cause packet collisions while a 3com 5c509b ISA card are known for being
more stable and faster than any other ISA NIC and even some low end PCI
NIC's (RealTek cards for example)

-Kenneth Hadley


- Original Message -
From: "Robert Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kenneth Hadley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "leaf"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE


> 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:
>
> >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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>


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

RE: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE

[Jeff Newmiller]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Simon Bolduc wrote:

> Running a 486/66 on a cable line - my router does 3mb/s without a hitch - 
> mind you I only ever see about 300KB/s max (instead of the 375KB/s I should 
> - but that has nothing to do with the router).  Math below is wrong BTW 
> (sorry to be picky).  1 byte = 8 bits thus  62KB/s would equate to 496kb/s

Michael Leone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > I routinely average 62KB (that equates to 620Kb) downloads.

I don't think 8 bits per byte is necessarily a better number than 10.

Just for comparison, a serial line's start and stop bits on 8N1
asynchronous characters yields an effective 11 bit-times per byte, plus
TCP overhead.

For TCP over ethernet, the rate is somewhere between an ideal 8.5
bit-times per byte and dozens of bits per byte, depending on how
efficiently the protocol fills the packets, and what the MTU is.

For ethernet over ATM (static ip on DSL) the additional overhead amounts
to a line rate of roughly 10 bit-times per byte, optimally.  I don't know
if DSL bit rates are quoted for their ATM rate or the ethernet rate, but
it looks to me like either of you could be right, depending on your
assumptions.

cf http://sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/net/overhead/

---
Jeff NewmillerThe .   .  Go Live...
DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Basics: ##.#.   ##.#.  Live Go...
  Live:   OO#.. Dead: OO#..  Playing
Research Engineer (Solar/BatteriesO.O#.   #.O#.  with
/Software/Embedded Controllers)   .OO#.   .OO#.  rocks...2k
---


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