Just upgraded a motherboard and it came with an onboard
Realtek card which appears to use the r8169 driver. The
machine is a samba server and when serving files to a local
Linux or Windows client, I only get approx 40-60 kbps.
Write performance is fine though, in the tens of mbps and
scp, nfs,
Shane wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:39:47AM -0700, Bruce Cole wrote:
Shane, join the crowd :) Try the fix I just re-posted over here:
Bruce, gigabit speeds thanks for the pointer. This fix
works well for me though I just added the three or so lines
in the elseif statement as it r
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Bruce Cole wrote:
Shane wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 09:39:47AM -0700, Bruce Cole wrote:
Shane, join the crowd :) Try the fix I just re-posted over here:
Bruce, gigabit speeds thanks for the pointer. This fix
works well for me though I just added the three or so l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> I have had abysmal performance trying to remotely run X apps via ssh on a
> computer with a RTL8111 NIC. Saw this message and decided to give this
> patch a try --- success! Much, much better.
Can you give a try to:
http://www.fr.zoreil.com/people
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
I have had abysmal performance trying to remotely run X apps via ssh on a
computer with a RTL8111 NIC. Saw this message and decided to give this
patch a try --- success! Much, much better.
Can you give
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> 20070903-2.6.23-rc5-r8169-test.patch applied against 2.6.23-rc5 works fine.
> Performance is acceptable.
Does "acceptable" mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ?
> Would you like me to *j
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Francois Romieu wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
20070903-2.6.23-rc5-r8169-test.patch applied against 2.6.23-rc5 works fine.
Performance is acceptable.
Does "acceptable" mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
to the patch based on a b
Francois Romieu wrote:
Does "acceptable" mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ?
Would you like me to *just* try patches 1 & 2, to help narrow down anything?
I expect patch #2 alone to be enough to enhance the performance. I
>Does "acceptable" mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
>to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ?
I noticed a somewhat significant difference between patch #0002 and a
busy wait loop with ndelay(10). Write performance was equivalent in
both cases as should be the case. Read
David Madsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> >Does "acceptable" mean that there is a noticeable difference when compared
> >to the patch based on a busy-waiting loop ?
>
> I noticed a somewhat significant difference between patch #0002 and a
> busy wait loop with ndelay(10). Write performance was equivale
> > I noticed a somewhat significant difference between patch #0002 and a
> > busy wait loop with ndelay(10). Write performance was equivalent in
> > both cases as should be the case. Read perfomance for me maxed out
>
> Do you have some (gross) figure for the write performance ?
Write performanc
> Do you see a difference in the system load too, say a few lines of 'vmstat 1'
> ?
This is running on a dual core machine which explains the 50/50
sys/idle in vmstat.
with 8168 hack (patch #0002):
writes:
isis tmp # dd if=/dev/zero of=test.fil bs=1M count=1000
1000+0 records in
1000+0 records
12 matches
Mail list logo
