Re: [fedora-arm] smsc95xx performance bug: eth vs usb

2011-06-01 Thread Andy Green
On 05/31/2011 09:36 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > >> Can you put the ethernet and storage on different hubs? (it may not be..) > > No, it's all on-board. No other hubs, all board-powered. > >> Or do you see similar crappy performance with the nic adapter >> unplugged and unused?

Re: [fedora-arm] smsc95xx performance bug: eth vs usb

2011-06-01 Thread Andy Green
On 06/01/2011 09:56 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: Hi - >>> Note: I get crappy performance with the network *up*, as long as >>> there's no traffic. >> I had a go a reproducing this also on a 2.6.38-based kernel on Panda. >> I was thinking it sounds a bit like USB suspend (not th

Re: [fedora-arm] Does anyone care about LSB on arm?

2011-06-01 Thread Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Wookey wrote: > In my experience anyone distributing binaries actually picks a small > set of distros and builds for those explicitly, rather than relying > on the LSB. Does that mean that it's not actually useful in the real > world? I guess in a sense this posti

Re: [fedora-arm] smsc95xx performance bug: eth vs usb

2011-06-01 Thread omalleys
Quoting Andy Green : > On 06/01/2011 09:56 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > Hi - > Note: I get crappy performance with the network *up*, as long as there's no traffic. > >>> I had a go a reproducing this also on a 2.6.38-based kernel on Panda. >>> I was thinking it soun

Re: [fedora-arm] smsc95xx performance bug: eth vs usb

2011-06-01 Thread DJ Delorie
> Or does it happen with reads too? With both the sata drive (sda) and flash drive (sdb) (both usb) connected, and network (also usb) up and running, I did some raw read tests: dd if=/dev/sda1 of=/dev/null bs=4096 count=102400 dd if=/dev/sdb1 of=/dev/null bs=4096 count=102400 sda 9

Re: [fedora-arm] smsc95xx performance bug: eth vs usb

2011-06-01 Thread Niels de Vos
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:59 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> Or does it happen with reads too? > > With both the sata drive (sda) and flash drive (sdb) (both usb) > connected, and network (also usb) up and running, I did some raw read > tests: > > dd if=/dev/sda1 of=/dev/null bs=4096 count=102400 > dd i

Re: [fedora-arm] smsc95xx performance bug: eth vs usb

2011-06-01 Thread DJ Delorie
> You also confirmed that one usb-storage and, quoting you: > > a serial port connected to a 9600 baud character generator, > > and got good performance. Likewise with a usb mouse, as long as I > > wiggled the mouse during the test. > > Were you referring to an onboard serial port ttyS or ttyO,

Re: [fedora-arm] smsc95xx performance bug: eth vs usb

2011-06-01 Thread DJ Delorie
> Have you tried turning on/off the improved transaction translator > scheduling or turbo_mode in the network driver? I have not, but given that performance is increased by *any* other usb activity (storage, mouse, ttyUSB0), I doubt the ethernet driver itself is at fault. > > both14.7 ea