* rt61pci - bad performance
@ 2010-08-08 9:49 Andreas
2010-08-12 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andreas @ 2010-08-08 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hello!
I've got the following hardware
01:05.0 Network controller: RaLink RT2561/RT61 rev B 802.11g
Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device b833
Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV+ VGASnoop-
ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx-
Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=slow >TAbort-
<TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
Latency: 128, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes
Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 21
Region 0: Memory at cc000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=32K]
Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2
Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA
PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)
Status: D0 NoSoftRst- PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
Kernel driver in use: ndiswrapper
running on a 32bit notebook with kernel 2.6.34-12-desktop (OpenSuSE
11.3). There is no difference between the compat-wireless-modules
2010-07-20 and the original modules shipped with the openSuSE 11.3 kernel.
If the rt61-chip is connected to a AP using rt61pci, the best
throughput, which can be achieved (at the same place), is about 1,7
MBytes/s.
kernel: [ 656.112190] cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory
domain
kernel: [ 656.112267] cfg80211: Calling CRDA for country: DE
kernel: [ 656.169518] cfg80211: Regulatory domain changed to country: DE
kernel: [ 656.169524] (start_freq - end_freq @ bandwidth),
(max_antenna_gain, max_eirp)
kernel: [ 656.169528] (2400000 KHz - 2483500 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
(N/A, 2000 mBm)
kernel: [ 656.169532] (5150000 KHz - 5350000 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
(N/A, 2000 mBm)
kernel: [ 656.169535] (5470000 KHz - 5725000 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
(N/A, 2698 mBm)
kernel: [ 656.206228] rt61pci 0000:01:05.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 21 (level,
low) -> IRQ 21
kernel: [ 656.219941] phy0: Selected rate control algorithm 'minstrel'
kernel: [ 656.222216] Registered led device: rt61pci-phy0::radio
kernel: [ 656.222658] Registered led device: rt61pci-phy0::assoc
kernel: notebook1 ifup: wlan0 device: RaLink RT2561/RT61 rev B
802.11g
wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:off
Power Management:off
Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
see additional information in iwconfig:
wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
Power Management:off
Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
The following is remarkably too:
ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
Ndiswrapper shows an encryption key, rt61pci not. Does it mean, that
rt61pci doesn't use hardware encryption?
With ndiswrapper, the rt61pci-chip achieves a throughput of 2,6 MBytes/s
- that's about 1 MByte/s more than rt61pci.
I have to say, that the difference between rt61pci and ndiswrapper gets
worse if the link quality is getting more badly. Or in other words:
ndiswrapper handles bad connections better then rt61pci.
Do you have any idea to get rt61pci working as fast as ndiswrapper?
Kind regards,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rt61pci - bad performance
2010-08-08 9:49 rt61pci - bad performance Andreas
@ 2010-08-12 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-13 8:35 ` Helmut Schaa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2010-08-12 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas; +Cc: linux-kernel, Ivo van Doorn, Gertjan van Wingerde, linux-wireless
(cc's added)
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:49:49 +0200
Andreas <andihartmann@01019freenet.de> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I've got the following hardware
>
>
> 01:05.0 Network controller: RaLink RT2561/RT61 rev B 802.11g
> Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device b833
> Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV+ VGASnoop-
> ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx-
> Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=slow >TAbort-
> <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
> Latency: 128, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes
> Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 21
> Region 0: Memory at cc000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=32K]
> Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2
> Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA
> PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)
> Status: D0 NoSoftRst- PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
> Kernel driver in use: ndiswrapper
>
>
> running on a 32bit notebook with kernel 2.6.34-12-desktop (OpenSuSE
> 11.3). There is no difference between the compat-wireless-modules
> 2010-07-20 and the original modules shipped with the openSuSE 11.3 kernel.
>
> If the rt61-chip is connected to a AP using rt61pci, the best
> throughput, which can be achieved (at the same place), is about 1,7
> MBytes/s.
>
> kernel: [ 656.112190] cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory
> domain
> kernel: [ 656.112267] cfg80211: Calling CRDA for country: DE
> kernel: [ 656.169518] cfg80211: Regulatory domain changed to country: DE
> kernel: [ 656.169524] (start_freq - end_freq @ bandwidth),
> (max_antenna_gain, max_eirp)
> kernel: [ 656.169528] (2400000 KHz - 2483500 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
> (N/A, 2000 mBm)
> kernel: [ 656.169532] (5150000 KHz - 5350000 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
> (N/A, 2000 mBm)
> kernel: [ 656.169535] (5470000 KHz - 5725000 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
> (N/A, 2698 mBm)
> kernel: [ 656.206228] rt61pci 0000:01:05.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 21 (level,
> low) -> IRQ 21
> kernel: [ 656.219941] phy0: Selected rate control algorithm 'minstrel'
> kernel: [ 656.222216] Registered led device: rt61pci-phy0::radio
> kernel: [ 656.222658] Registered led device: rt61pci-phy0::assoc
> kernel: notebook1 ifup: wlan0 device: RaLink RT2561/RT61 rev B
> 802.11g
>
>
>
> wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
> Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
> Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
> Encryption key:off
> Power Management:off
> Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>
> The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
>
>
>
>
> If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
> see additional information in iwconfig:
>
> wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
> Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
> RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
> Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
> Power Management:off
> Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>
>
> There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
> and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
>
> The following is remarkably too:
> ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
> why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
> higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
> higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
> Ndiswrapper shows an encryption key, rt61pci not. Does it mean, that
> rt61pci doesn't use hardware encryption?
>
>
> With ndiswrapper, the rt61pci-chip achieves a throughput of 2,6 MBytes/s
> - that's about 1 MByte/s more than rt61pci.
>
> I have to say, that the difference between rt61pci and ndiswrapper gets
> worse if the link quality is getting more badly. Or in other words:
> ndiswrapper handles bad connections better then rt61pci.
>
>
> Do you have any idea to get rt61pci working as fast as ndiswrapper?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rt61pci - bad performance
2010-08-12 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2010-08-13 8:35 ` Helmut Schaa
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Helmut Schaa @ 2010-08-13 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-kernel, Ivo van Doorn, Gertjan van Wingerde,
linux-wireless
Hi Andreas,
Am Freitag 13 August 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> (cc's added)
>
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:49:49 +0200
> Andreas <andihartmann@01019freenet.de> wrote:
[...]
> > wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
> > Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
> > Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
> > Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
> > Encryption key:off
> > Power Management:off
> > Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
> > Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
> > Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
> >
> > The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
This doesn't look like an appropriate way to measure the throughput. You
should use something like iperf [1] or netperf [2] for your measurements
to get more accurate results.
> > If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
> > see additional information in iwconfig:
> >
> > wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
> > Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
> > Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
> > RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
> > Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
> > Power Management:off
> > Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
> > Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
> > Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
> >
> >
> > There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
> > and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
I wouldn't trust the link quality values that much, the calculation in rt61pi
is most likely different from what the windows driver does. So it is not
really comparable.
> > The following is remarkably too:
> > ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
> > why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
> > higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
> > higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
Could you elaborate please? Did you actually try to patch it or is this just
an assumption?
> > Ndiswrapper shows an encryption key, rt61pci not. Does it mean, that
> > rt61pci doesn't use hardware encryption?
hw crypto should be enabled by default in rt61pci, however, I don't know
if it is actually working ;)
> > With ndiswrapper, the rt61pci-chip achieves a throughput of 2,6 MBytes/s
> > - that's about 1 MByte/s more than rt61pci.
> >
> > I have to say, that the difference between rt61pci and ndiswrapper gets
> > worse if the link quality is getting more badly. Or in other words:
> > ndiswrapper handles bad connections better then rt61pci.
> >
> >
> > Do you have any idea to get rt61pci working as fast as ndiswrapper?
Please run proper measurements first and post the results again.
Thanks,
Helmut
[1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf/
[2] http://www.netperf.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rt61pci - bad performance
[not found] ` <201008240937.37431.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>
@ 2010-08-26 17:36 ` Andreas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andreas @ 2010-08-26 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Helmut Schaa
Cc: Kernel-Mailingliste, Ivo Van Doorn, gwingerde, linux-wireless
Helmut Schaa wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Am Monday 23 August 2010 schrieb Andreas:
>> could you meanwhile locate a problem according the measurement I gave
>> you? I would be interested if these values are considered normal.
>> Unfortunately the ndiswrapper module doesn't provide data like this, so
>> I can't estimate the rt61pci measurement.
>
> I guess it is just the tx power handling in rt61pci that's not 100% correct.
> Your patch however might as well have a not 100% perfect effect. As you can
> see in the rc_stats file rates above 36Mbit are not used as they are too
> unreliable which could be a direct result of a too high tx power (your
> patching to a value of 25 without knowing what this value should be).
>
> However, I don't own rt61pci hw and don't have the time to review the tx power
> code in rt16pci but Ivo posted a patch yesterday that might be suitable
> to your problem "[PATCH 8/8] rt2x00: Fix max TX power settings".
Ok, I tested this patch against the opensSuSE compat-wireless-2.6.35-1.
First of all, the problem with the wrong tx-power disappeared:
wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"...."
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: ...
Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm
Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:off
Power Management:off
Link Quality=36/70 Signal level=-74 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
But the problem with bad transfer rates got worse:
from server -> client (download)
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
attempts
1 0.8 89.9 100.0 0( 0) 25
25
2 1.8 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
5.5 4.8 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
11 9.1 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
6 5.5 96.8 100.0 0( 0) 12
12
9 8.0 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 123
123
12 10.6 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
18 15.5 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
24 20.3 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
36 29.1 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
t 48 37.4 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
T P 54 43.3 99.9 100.0 2( 2) 71701
71776
Total packet count:: ideal 1924 lookaround 101
netperf -t TCP_MAERTS -H client
TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET client (....) port
0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 16384 16384 10.61 10.61
from client to server (upload)
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
attempts
1 0.8 89.9 100.0 0( 0) 25
25
2 1.8 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
5.5 4.8 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
11 9.1 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
6 5.5 96.8 100.0 0( 0) 12
12
9 8.0 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 123
123
12 10.6 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
18 15.5 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
24 20.3 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
36 29.1 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
t 48 37.4 95.7 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
T P 54 43.3 99.9 100.0 1( 1) 88674
88761
Total packet count:: ideal 8560 lookaround 450
netperf -t TCP_STREAM -H server
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to server (...)
port 0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 16384 16384 11.15 6.01
Is there a chance to repair this bad throughput?
Kind regards,
Andreas
>> Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>> Added rt2x00 mailinglist to CC ...
>>>
>>> Am Saturday 14 August 2010 schrieb Andreas:
>>>> Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am Freitag 13 August 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
>>>>>> (cc's added)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:49:49 +0200
>>>>>> Andreas<andihartmann@01019freenet.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
>>>>>>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>>>>>>> Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
>>>>>>> Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
>>>>>>> Encryption key:off
>>>>>>> Power Management:off
>>>>>>> Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
>>>>>>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>>>>>>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't look like an appropriate way to measure the throughput. You
>>>>> should use something like iperf [1] or netperf [2] for your measurements
>>>>> to get more accurate results.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
>>>>>>> see additional information in iwconfig:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
>>>>>>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>>>>>>> Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
>>>>>>> RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
>>>>>>> Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
>>>>>>> Power Management:off
>>>>>>> Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
>>>>>>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>>>>>>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
>>>>>>> and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't trust the link quality values that much, the calculation in rt61pi
>>>>> is most likely different from what the windows driver does. So it is not
>>>>> really comparable.
>>>>
>>>> I detected the problem using tunneled ssh-x-sessions and during copying
>>>> of data. I'm not really interested in the link-quality - I just need a
>>>> high performance :-).
>>>>
>>>>>>> The following is remarkably too:
>>>>>>> ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
>>>>>>> why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
>>>>>>> higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
>>>>>>> higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you elaborate please? Did you actually try to patch it or is this just
>>>>> an assumption?
>>>>
>>>> see my other mail!
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ndiswrapper shows an encryption key, rt61pci not. Does it mean, that
>>>>>>> rt61pci doesn't use hardware encryption?
>>>>>
>>>>> hw crypto should be enabled by default in rt61pci, however, I don't know
>>>>> if it is actually working ;)
>>>>
>>>> How can I see if it's working?
>>>
>>> You can add a printk to rt61pci_fill_rxdone, something like:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
>>> index e539c6c..aa1aafd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
>>> @@ -2023,6 +2023,7 @@ static void rt61pci_fill_rxdone(struct queue_entry *entry,
>>> rxdesc->flags |= RX_FLAG_DECRYPTED;
>>> else if (rxdesc->cipher_status == RX_CRYPTO_FAIL_MIC)
>>> rxdesc->flags |= RX_FLAG_MMIC_ERROR;
>>> + printk(KERN_INFO "rt61pci_fill_rxdone: %x\n", rxdesc->cipher_status);
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> With ndiswrapper, the rt61pci-chip achieves a throughput of 2,6 MBytes/s
>>>>>>> - that's about 1 MByte/s more than rt61pci.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to say, that the difference between rt61pci and ndiswrapper gets
>>>>>>> worse if the link quality is getting more badly. Or in other words:
>>>>>>> ndiswrapper handles bad connections better then rt61pci.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any idea to get rt61pci working as fast as ndiswrapper?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please run proper measurements first and post the results again.
>>>>
>>>> I did some measurements with netperf (TCP_STREAM):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ndiswrapper
>>>> ===========
>>>>
>>>> (OpenSuSE 11.2 2.6.31.13-21):
>>>> download
>>>> average min max
>>>> 20,88 19,02 22,19 MBit/s (6 runs)
>>>>
>>>> upstream
>>>> average min max
>>>> 21,46 18,84 22,26 MBits/s (7 runs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OpenSuSE 11.3 (2.6.34-12-desktop)
>>>> download
>>>> average min max
>>>> 21,41 20,51 22,51 MBit/s (16 runs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> upstream
>>>> average min max
>>>> error
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> rt61pci (patched - compat-wireless-2010-07-20)
>>>> ==============================================
>>>>
>>>> OpenSuSE 11.3 (2.6.34-12-desktop)
>>>> download
>>>> average min max
>>>> 15,54 12,4 17,19 MBit/s (25 runs)
>>>>
>>>> upstream
>>>> average min max
>>>> 13,54 12,1 14,04 MBits/s (7 runs)
>>>
>>> Hmm, ok that's quite a difference. Could you please mount debugfs
>>> (mount -t debugfs none /mnt), rerun the test and attach the contents
>>> of /mnt/ieee80211/phy0/stations/XX\:XX\:XX\:XX\:XX\:XX/rc_stats
>>> afterwards (XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX is the BSSID your connected to).
>>
>> Wel, I did some tests. I tried to get same conditions (what is not as
>> easy). I will show here some results, which seem to be typical to me.
>>
>>
>> downstream
>> ==========
>>
>> netperf -t TCP_SENDFILE -H client
>> TCP SENDFILE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
>> AF_INET
>> Recv Send Send
>> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
>> Size Size Size Time Throughput
>> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 87380 16384 16384 10.36 16.38
>>
>>
>> /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
>> rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
>> attempts
>> 1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11 11
>> 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 2
>> 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 32
>> 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551 1574
>> 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096 6862
>> 18 11.3 69.9 66.6 0( 0) 18047 25158
>> t 24 13.4 62.9 100.0 0( 0) 29100 42883
>> T P 36 28.2 92.8 100.0 1( 1) 135030 175797
>> 48 4.4 11.3 0.0 0( 0) 361 3646
>> 54 0.8 1.8 0.0 0( 0) 55 1727
>>
>> Total packet count:: ideal 8917 lookaround 991
>>
>>
>>
>> netperf -t TCP_STREAM -H client
>> TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
>> AF_INET
>> Recv Send Send
>> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
>> Size Size Size Time Throughput
>> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 87380 16384 16384 10.39 16.57
>>
>>
>> /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
>> rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
>> attempts
>> 1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11 11
>> 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 2
>> 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 32
>> 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551 1614
>> 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096 7047
>> t 18 12.8 79.2 80.0 0( 0) 18647 25949
>> 24 9.9 46.7 100.0 0( 0) 29439 44023
>> T P 36 29.0 95.6 100.0 1( 1) 141588 183495
>> 48 5.2 13.3 50.0 0( 0) 380 3781
>> 54 12.4 28.6 100.0 0( 0) 60 1797
>>
>> Total packet count:: ideal 6867 lookaround 763
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> upstream:
>> ========
>>
>> netperf -t TCP_MAERTS -H client
>> TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET client port 0 AF_INET
>> Recv Send Send
>> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
>> Size Size Size Time Throughput
>> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 87380 16384 16384 10.56 13.19
>>
>>
>> /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
>> rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
>> attempts
>> 1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11 11
>> 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 2
>> 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 32
>> 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551 1723
>> 12 6.8 61.8 100.0 0( 0) 2122 7635
>> P 18 16.0 98.6 100.0 0( 0) 21199 29108
>> t 24 16.6 78.2 100.0 0( 0) 44090 61942
>> T 36 29.1 95.7 100.0 1( 1) 183435 238929
>> 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 446 4861
>> 54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 67 2340
>>
>> Total packet count:: ideal 6696 lookaround 743
>>
>>
>>
>> netperf -t TCP_MAERTS -H client
>> TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
>> AF_INET
>> Recv Send Send
>> Socket Socket Message Elapsed
>> Size Size Size Time Throughput
>> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
>>
>> 87380 16384 16384 10.39 13.38
>>
>>
>> /sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
>> rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
>> attempts
>> 1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11 11
>> 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 0
>> 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 2
>> 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0 32
>> 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551 1534
>> 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096 6669
>> 18 15.5 95.4 100.0 0( 0) 17433 24342
>> tP 24 20.9 98.3 100.0 0( 0) 28782 41742
>> T 36 28.9 95.2 100.0 1( 1) 128587 168213
>> 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 341 3510
>> 54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 54 1658
>>
>> Total packet count:: ideal 2073 lookaround 230
>>
>>
>> It's remarkably, that the upstream is 3 Mbit/s lower than the downstream.
>>
>> Does this help you? Do you need some more data? Feel free to ask!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> rt61pci (original (unpatched) from OpenSuSE 11.3)
>>>> ==============================================
>>>>
>>>> download
>>>> 0,7 MBit/s
>>>>
>>>> upstream
>>>> error (interrupted system call)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you compare ndiswrapper with rt61pci patched, there is a difference
>>>> of about 6 MBits/s. The unpatched version can't be used at all.
>>>
>>> Ok, so either the txpower handling in rt61pci needs to be reviewed or your
>>> eeprom contents are crippled up. Not sure though ...
>>
>> Is there a way to check this? Can I do anything to test?
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rt61pci - bad performance
[not found] ` <201008160901.57487.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>
@ 2010-08-16 17:04 ` Andreas Hartmann
[not found] ` <4C72C382.4020708@01019freenet.de>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Hartmann @ 2010-08-16 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Helmut Schaa; +Cc: users, Kernel-Mailingliste
Helmut Schaa wrote:
> Added rt2x00 mailinglist to CC ...
>
> Am Saturday 14 August 2010 schrieb Andreas:
>> Helmut Schaa wrote:
>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>
>>> Am Freitag 13 August 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
>>>> (cc's added)
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:49:49 +0200
>>>> Andreas<andihartmann@01019freenet.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
>>>>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>>>>> Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
>>>>> Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
>>>>> Encryption key:off
>>>>> Power Management:off
>>>>> Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
>>>>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>>>>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>>>>
>>>>> The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
>>>
>>> This doesn't look like an appropriate way to measure the throughput. You
>>> should use something like iperf [1] or netperf [2] for your measurements
>>> to get more accurate results.
>>>
>>>>> If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
>>>>> see additional information in iwconfig:
>>>>>
>>>>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
>>>>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>>>>> Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
>>>>> RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
>>>>> Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
>>>>> Power Management:off
>>>>> Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
>>>>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>>>>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
>>>>> and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
>>>
>>> I wouldn't trust the link quality values that much, the calculation in rt61pi
>>> is most likely different from what the windows driver does. So it is not
>>> really comparable.
>>
>> I detected the problem using tunneled ssh-x-sessions and during copying
>> of data. I'm not really interested in the link-quality - I just need a
>> high performance :-).
>>
>>>>> The following is remarkably too:
>>>>> ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
>>>>> why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
>>>>> higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
>>>>> higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate please? Did you actually try to patch it or is this just
>>> an assumption?
>>
>> see my other mail!
>>
>>>>> Ndiswrapper shows an encryption key, rt61pci not. Does it mean, that
>>>>> rt61pci doesn't use hardware encryption?
>>>
>>> hw crypto should be enabled by default in rt61pci, however, I don't know
>>> if it is actually working ;)
>>
>> How can I see if it's working?
>
> You can add a printk to rt61pci_fill_rxdone, something like:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
> index e539c6c..aa1aafd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt61pci.c
> @@ -2023,6 +2023,7 @@ static void rt61pci_fill_rxdone(struct queue_entry *entry,
> rxdesc->flags |= RX_FLAG_DECRYPTED;
> else if (rxdesc->cipher_status == RX_CRYPTO_FAIL_MIC)
> rxdesc->flags |= RX_FLAG_MMIC_ERROR;
> + printk(KERN_INFO "rt61pci_fill_rxdone: %x\n", rxdesc->cipher_status);
> }
>
> /*
>
>
>>>>> With ndiswrapper, the rt61pci-chip achieves a throughput of 2,6 MBytes/s
>>>>> - that's about 1 MByte/s more than rt61pci.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to say, that the difference between rt61pci and ndiswrapper gets
>>>>> worse if the link quality is getting more badly. Or in other words:
>>>>> ndiswrapper handles bad connections better then rt61pci.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any idea to get rt61pci working as fast as ndiswrapper?
>>>
>>> Please run proper measurements first and post the results again.
>>
>> I did some measurements with netperf (TCP_STREAM):
>>
>>
>> ndiswrapper
>> ===========
>>
>> (OpenSuSE 11.2 2.6.31.13-21):
>> download
>> average min max
>> 20,88 19,02 22,19 MBit/s (6 runs)
>>
>> upstream
>> average min max
>> 21,46 18,84 22,26 MBits/s (7 runs)
>>
>>
>> OpenSuSE 11.3 (2.6.34-12-desktop)
>> download
>> average min max
>> 21,41 20,51 22,51 MBit/s (16 runs)
>>
>>
>> upstream
>> average min max
>> error
>>
>>
>> rt61pci (patched - compat-wireless-2010-07-20)
>> ==============================================
>>
>> OpenSuSE 11.3 (2.6.34-12-desktop)
>> download
>> average min max
>> 15,54 12,4 17,19 MBit/s (25 runs)
>>
>> upstream
>> average min max
>> 13,54 12,1 14,04 MBits/s (7 runs)
>
> Hmm, ok that's quite a difference. Could you please mount debugfs
> (mount -t debugfs none /mnt), rerun the test and attach the contents
> of /mnt/ieee80211/phy0/stations/XX\:XX\:XX\:XX\:XX\:XX/rc_stats
> afterwards (XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX is the BSSID your connected to).
Wel, I did some tests. I tried to get same conditions (what is not as
easy). I will show here some results, which seem to be typical to me.
downstream
==========
netperf -t TCP_SENDFILE -H client
TCP SENDFILE TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 16384 16384 10.36 16.38
/sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
attempts
1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
0
5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
0
11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
2
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
32
9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551
1574
12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096
6862
18 11.3 69.9 66.6 0( 0) 18047
25158
t 24 13.4 62.9 100.0 0( 0) 29100
42883
T P 36 28.2 92.8 100.0 1( 1) 135030 175797
48 4.4 11.3 0.0 0( 0) 361
3646
54 0.8 1.8 0.0 0( 0) 55
1727
Total packet count:: ideal 8917 lookaround 991
netperf -t TCP_STREAM -H client
TCP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 16384 16384 10.39 16.57
/sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
attempts
1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
0
5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
0
11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
2
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
32
9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551
1614
12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096
7047
t 18 12.8 79.2 80.0 0( 0) 18647
25949
24 9.9 46.7 100.0 0( 0) 29439
44023
T P 36 29.0 95.6 100.0 1( 1) 141588 183495
48 5.2 13.3 50.0 0( 0) 380
3781
54 12.4 28.6 100.0 0( 0) 60
1797
Total packet count:: ideal 6867 lookaround 763
upstream:
========
netperf -t TCP_MAERTS -H client
TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET client port 0 AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 16384 16384 10.56 13.19
/sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
attempts
1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
0
5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
0
11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
2
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
32
9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551
1723
12 6.8 61.8 100.0 0( 0) 2122
7635
P 18 16.0 98.6 100.0 0( 0) 21199
29108
t 24 16.6 78.2 100.0 0( 0) 44090
61942
T 36 29.1 95.7 100.0 1( 1) 183435 238929
48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 446
4861
54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 67
2340
Total packet count:: ideal 6696 lookaround 743
netperf -t TCP_MAERTS -H client
TCP MAERTS TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to client port 0
AF_INET
Recv Send Send
Socket Socket Message Elapsed
Size Size Size Time Throughput
bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/sec
87380 16384 16384 10.39 13.38
/sys/kernel/debug/ieee80211/phy0/stations/xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx # cat rc_stats
rate throughput ewma prob this prob this succ/attempt success
attempts
1 0.7 76.2 100.0 0( 0) 11
11
2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
0
5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
0
11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
2
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 0
32
9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 551
1534
12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 2096
6669
18 15.5 95.4 100.0 0( 0) 17433
24342
tP 24 20.9 98.3 100.0 0( 0) 28782
41742
T 36 28.9 95.2 100.0 1( 1) 128587 168213
48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 341
3510
54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0( 0) 54
1658
Total packet count:: ideal 2073 lookaround 230
It's remarkably, that the upstream is 3 Mbit/s lower than the downstream.
Does this help you? Do you need some more data? Feel free to ask!
>
>> rt61pci (original (unpatched) from OpenSuSE 11.3)
>> ==============================================
>>
>> download
>> 0,7 MBit/s
>>
>> upstream
>> error (interrupted system call)
>>
>>
>> If you compare ndiswrapper with rt61pci patched, there is a difference
>> of about 6 MBits/s. The unpatched version can't be used at all.
>
> Ok, so either the txpower handling in rt61pci needs to be reviewed or your
> eeprom contents are crippled up. Not sure though ...
Is there a way to check this? Can I do anything to test?
Kind regards,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rt61pci - bad performance
[not found] ` <fgXXY-KJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
@ 2010-08-14 8:55 ` Andreas
[not found] ` <201008160901.57487.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andreas @ 2010-08-14 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Helmut Schaa, linux-kernel
Helmut Schaa wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Am Freitag 13 August 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
>> (cc's added)
>>
>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:49:49 +0200
>> Andreas<andihartmann@01019freenet.de> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
>>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>>> Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
>>> Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
>>> Encryption key:off
>>> Power Management:off
>>> Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
>>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>>
>>> The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
>
> This doesn't look like an appropriate way to measure the throughput. You
> should use something like iperf [1] or netperf [2] for your measurements
> to get more accurate results.
>
>>> If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
>>> see additional information in iwconfig:
>>>
>>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
>>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>>> Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
>>> RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
>>> Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
>>> Power Management:off
>>> Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
>>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
>>> and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
>
> I wouldn't trust the link quality values that much, the calculation in rt61pi
> is most likely different from what the windows driver does. So it is not
> really comparable.
I detected the problem using tunneled ssh-x-sessions and during copying
of data. I'm not really interested in the link-quality - I just need a
high performance :-).
>>> The following is remarkably too:
>>> ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
>>> why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
>>> higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
>>> higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
>
> Could you elaborate please? Did you actually try to patch it or is this just
> an assumption?
see my other mail!
>>> Ndiswrapper shows an encryption key, rt61pci not. Does it mean, that
>>> rt61pci doesn't use hardware encryption?
>
> hw crypto should be enabled by default in rt61pci, however, I don't know
> if it is actually working ;)
How can I see if it's working?
>>> With ndiswrapper, the rt61pci-chip achieves a throughput of 2,6 MBytes/s
>>> - that's about 1 MByte/s more than rt61pci.
>>>
>>> I have to say, that the difference between rt61pci and ndiswrapper gets
>>> worse if the link quality is getting more badly. Or in other words:
>>> ndiswrapper handles bad connections better then rt61pci.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have any idea to get rt61pci working as fast as ndiswrapper?
>
> Please run proper measurements first and post the results again.
I did some measurements with netperf (TCP_STREAM):
ndiswrapper
===========
(OpenSuSE 11.2 2.6.31.13-21):
download
average min max
20,88 19,02 22,19 MBit/s (6 runs)
upstream
average min max
21,46 18,84 22,26 MBits/s (7 runs)
OpenSuSE 11.3 (2.6.34-12-desktop)
download
average min max
21,41 20,51 22,51 MBit/s (16 runs)
upstream
average min max
error
rt61pci (patched - compat-wireless-2010-07-20)
==============================================
OpenSuSE 11.3 (2.6.34-12-desktop)
download
average min max
15,54 12,4 17,19 MBit/s (25 runs)
upstream
average min max
13,54 12,1 14,04 MBits/s (7 runs)
rt61pci (original (unpatched) from OpenSuSE 11.3)
==============================================
download
0,7 MBit/s
upstream
error (interrupted system call)
If you compare ndiswrapper with rt61pci patched, there is a difference
of about 6 MBits/s. The unpatched version can't be used at all.
Another point is the upstream issue with ndiswrapper with
2.6.34-kernels, which appears under some conditions (under "normal"
conditions, I didn't see this problem yet).
Do you need some special tests? Please ask for them - I'll try to
provide them!
Thanks for you help,
kind regards,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rt61pci - bad performance
[not found] ` <fgPe2-2X7-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
@ 2010-08-14 8:33 ` Andreas
[not found] ` <fgXXY-KJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andreas @ 2010-08-14 8:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Helmut Schaa
Andrew Morton wrote:
> (cc's added)
>
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:49:49 +0200
> Andreas<andihartmann@01019freenet.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I've got the following hardware
>>
>>
>> 01:05.0 Network controller: RaLink RT2561/RT61 rev B 802.11g
>> Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device b833
>> Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster+ SpecCycle- MemWINV+ VGASnoop-
>> ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx-
>> Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=slow>TAbort-
>> <TAbort-<MAbort->SERR-<PERR- INTx-
>> Latency: 128, Cache Line Size: 64 bytes
>> Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 21
>> Region 0: Memory at cc000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=32K]
>> Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2
>> Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA
>> PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)
>> Status: D0 NoSoftRst- PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
>> Kernel driver in use: ndiswrapper
>>
>>
>> running on a 32bit notebook with kernel 2.6.34-12-desktop (OpenSuSE
>> 11.3). There is no difference between the compat-wireless-modules
>> 2010-07-20 and the original modules shipped with the openSuSE 11.3 kernel.
>>
>> If the rt61-chip is connected to a AP using rt61pci, the best
>> throughput, which can be achieved (at the same place), is about 1,7
>> MBytes/s.
>>
>> kernel: [ 656.112190] cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory
>> domain
>> kernel: [ 656.112267] cfg80211: Calling CRDA for country: DE
>> kernel: [ 656.169518] cfg80211: Regulatory domain changed to country: DE
>> kernel: [ 656.169524] (start_freq - end_freq @ bandwidth),
>> (max_antenna_gain, max_eirp)
>> kernel: [ 656.169528] (2400000 KHz - 2483500 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
>> (N/A, 2000 mBm)
>> kernel: [ 656.169532] (5150000 KHz - 5350000 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
>> (N/A, 2000 mBm)
>> kernel: [ 656.169535] (5470000 KHz - 5725000 KHz @ 40000 KHz),
>> (N/A, 2698 mBm)
>> kernel: [ 656.206228] rt61pci 0000:01:05.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 21 (level,
>> low) -> IRQ 21
>> kernel: [ 656.219941] phy0: Selected rate control algorithm 'minstrel'
>> kernel: [ 656.222216] Registered led device: rt61pci-phy0::radio
>> kernel: [ 656.222658] Registered led device: rt61pci-phy0::assoc
>> kernel: notebook1 ifup: wlan0 device: RaLink RT2561/RT61 rev B
>> 802.11g
>>
>>
>>
>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>> Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
>> Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
>> Encryption key:off
>> Power Management:off
>> Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>
>> The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
>> see additional information in iwconfig:
>>
>> wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
>> Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
>> Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
>> RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
>> Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
>> Power Management:off
>> Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
>> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
>> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>>
>>
>> There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
>> and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
>>
>> The following is remarkably too:
>> ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
>> why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
>> higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
>> higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
That's wrong. I detected, that there is a great difference, because if
you start the unpatched driver directly after the boot, the link isn't
useable at all.
I can't see any difference if the patched driver is loaded once and
removed and the unpatched is loaded afterwards without rebooting between.
The patch is:
--- rt61pci.c.orig 2010-07-20 21:03:02.000000000 +0200
+++ rt61pci.c 2010-08-14 10:27:52.708008193 +0200
@@ -2661,13 +2661,17 @@
spec->channels_info = info;
tx_power = rt2x00_eeprom_addr(rt2x00dev, EEPROM_TXPOWER_G_START);
- for (i = 0; i < 14; i++)
- info[i].tx_power1 = TXPOWER_FROM_DEV(tx_power[i]);
+ for (i = 0; i < 14; i++) {
+ // info[i].tx_power1 = TXPOWER_FROM_DEV(tx_power[i]);
+ info[i].tx_power1 = 25;
+ }
if (spec->num_channels > 14) {
tx_power = rt2x00_eeprom_addr(rt2x00dev,
EEPROM_TXPOWER_A_START);
- for (i = 14; i < spec->num_channels; i++)
- info[i].tx_power1 = TXPOWER_FROM_DEV(tx_power[i]);
+ for (i = 14; i < spec->num_channels; i++) {
+ // info[i].tx_power1 =
TXPOWER_FROM_DEV(tx_power[i]);
+ info[i].tx_power1 = 25;
+ }
}
return 0;
Kind regards,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-08-26 17:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-08-08 9:49 rt61pci - bad performance Andreas
2010-08-12 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-13 8:35 ` Helmut Schaa
[not found] <ffaPE-58l-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <fgPe2-2X7-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
2010-08-14 8:33 ` Andreas
[not found] ` <fgXXY-KJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
2010-08-14 8:55 ` Andreas
[not found] ` <201008160901.57487.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>
2010-08-16 17:04 ` Andreas Hartmann
[not found] ` <4C72C382.4020708@01019freenet.de>
[not found] ` <201008240937.37431.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>
2010-08-26 17:36 ` Andreas
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.