Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 14:06:19 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: wandboard-quad: ffec performance (about 190 Mbits/sec) Message-ID: <5366111B.5070503@passap.ru> In-Reply-To: <20140503202441.GD64774@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <53654A67.6030605@passap.ru> <20140503202441.GD64774@cicely7.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
04.05.2014 00:24, Bernd Walter пишет: > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:58:31PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> My home PC has max perfomance approx. 800 Mbit/sec (measured between >> two re adapters and a cheap d-link switch in between them). >> >> I've just test ffec performance (one of re's is the other side): >> ----- >> >> Is this an expected result? Assuming that the system was about 65% idle, >> there is a space for improvement. > > Freecale says that the ethernet interface has a 400Mbit/s memory > interface, so that's pretty much the physical limit and I think even > in summary of both directions. > The hardware also has some very fancy IP offloading stuff, of which I > don't know how much we already utilize. >From the Processor Reference Manual (IMX6DQRM, Rev. 1, 04/2013), Chapter 23 "10/100/1000-Mbps Ethernet MAC (ENET), Section 23.1.1 "Features": ----- The theoretical maximum performance of 1 Gbps ENET is limited to 470 Mbps (total for Tx and Rx)[...] The actual measured performance in an optimized environnment is up to 400 Mbps. ----- So, it seems that 400 Mbps is a real target. > As an interest off myself, when you already have such a setup running. > Can you do a ping test to see what latency you get during bulk traffic > and without? > Currently I can't easily do such tests myself, since I have a full > workbench with unrelated stuff. OK, here it is. Pining wandboard while it generates traffic to iperf server (wandboard runs "iperf -c <server>"). Pinging time window is slightly broader then iperf one: ----- % ping wb2.bb.tel.ru PING wb2 (192.168.100.211): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.217 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.193 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.754 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.709 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.011 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.456 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=3.117 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=2.871 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.198 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.205 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.206 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.100.211: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.173 ms ^C --- wb2 ping statistics --- 16 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 25.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.173/1.176/3.117/1.175 ms ----- -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5366111B.5070503>