* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
@ 2004-02-09 3:43 David Presotto
2004-02-09 4:57 ` Chris Van Horne
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: David Presotto @ 2004-02-09 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cvanhorne, 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 144 bytes --]
Check to see where plan9 decided to assign its interrupts (cat '#P'/irqalloc).
Then check to see what they are on whatever OS you were running.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2445 bytes --]
From: Chris Van Horne <cvanhorne@cox.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:18:32 -0700
Message-ID: <4026FC08.8030001@cox.net>
I noticed yesterday after throwing p9 on a toshiba satellite 2805-S301
under a Linksys WPC11 that the network throughput was a horrid 26
kB/sec. The onboard Intel epro100 gave only 640 kB/sec. Anyone have
some ideas that could lead to this or something I could try?
Not sure what other information is needed, but:
128MB RAM, using fossil, disk doesn't feel sluggish.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
2004-02-09 3:43 [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100 David Presotto
@ 2004-02-09 4:57 ` Chris Van Horne
2004-02-09 5:04 ` ron minnich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Chris Van Horne @ 2004-02-09 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Yep, ether{0,1} are both on IRQ 11.
David Presotto wrote:
>Check to see where plan9 decided to assign its interrupts (cat '#P'/irqalloc).
>Then check to see what they are on whatever OS you were running.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
> From:
> Chris Van Horne <cvanhorne@cox.net>
> Date:
> Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:18:32 -0700
> To:
> 9fans@cse.psu.edu
>
> To:
> 9fans@cse.psu.edu
>
>
> I noticed yesterday after throwing p9 on a toshiba satellite 2805-S301
> under a Linksys WPC11 that the network throughput was a horrid 26
> kB/sec. The onboard Intel epro100 gave only 640 kB/sec. Anyone have
> some ideas that could lead to this or something I could try?
>
> Not sure what other information is needed, but:
> 128MB RAM, using fossil, disk doesn't feel sluggish.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
2004-02-09 4:57 ` Chris Van Horne
@ 2004-02-09 5:04 ` ron minnich
2004-02-09 5:19 ` Chris Van Horne
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2004-02-09 5:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Chris Van Horne wrote:
> Yep, ether{0,1} are both on IRQ 11.
yeah, that's an amazingly common setup. I'm curious, do you know what the
chipset is? I wonder if Plan 9 did something wrong with the IRQ table
management?
Did you see what the IRQs are on a working OS, or is this IRQ 11 thing
what Plan 9 set up?
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
2004-02-09 5:04 ` ron minnich
@ 2004-02-09 5:19 ` Chris Van Horne
2004-02-09 5:33 ` ron minnich
2004-02-09 5:34 ` ron minnich
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Chris Van Horne @ 2004-02-09 5:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
chipset: Intel 82371AB PIIX4
The PCMCIA yenta is showing on IRQ 11, as is the e100, while the wavelan
(WPC11 v3) is on IRQ 3.
ron minnich wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Chris Van Horne wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yep, ether{0,1} are both on IRQ 11.
>>
>>
>
>yeah, that's an amazingly common setup. I'm curious, do you know what the
>chipset is? I wonder if Plan 9 did something wrong with the IRQ table
>management?
>
>Did you see what the IRQs are on a working OS, or is this IRQ 11 thing
>what Plan 9 set up?
>
>ron
>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
2004-02-09 5:19 ` Chris Van Horne
@ 2004-02-09 5:33 ` ron minnich
2004-02-09 5:41 ` jmk
2004-02-09 14:56 ` David Presotto
2004-02-09 5:34 ` ron minnich
1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2004-02-09 5:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Chris Van Horne wrote:
> chipset: Intel 82371AB PIIX4
>
> The PCMCIA yenta is showing on IRQ 11, as is the e100, while the wavelan
> (WPC11 v3) is on IRQ 3.
somebody remind me. How do we see whether plan9 is taking interrupts from
those devices? Sorry, I know the simple command on linux but forget it on
Plan 9. You can do some pings via the wavelan and see if you are getting
tx ints or not, and if not, that's a place to start looking (you've
probably done this).
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
2004-02-09 5:33 ` ron minnich
@ 2004-02-09 5:41 ` jmk
2004-02-09 6:00 ` ron minnich
2004-02-09 14:56 ` David Presotto
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: jmk @ 2004-02-09 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Mon Feb 9 00:34:30 EST 2004, rminnich@lanl.gov wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Chris Van Horne wrote:
>
> > chipset: Intel 82371AB PIIX4
> >
> > The PCMCIA yenta is showing on IRQ 11, as is the e100, while the wavelan
> > (WPC11 v3) is on IRQ 3.
>
> somebody remind me. How do we see whether plan9 is taking interrupts from
> those devices? Sorry, I know the simple command on linux but forget it on
> Plan 9. You can do some pings via the wavelan and see if you are getting
> tx ints or not, and if not, that's a place to start looking (you've
> probably done this).
>
> ron
An IRQ of 3 is the default in the driver if you don't tell it otherwise,
it's almost always wrong. Try setting it to whatever it ends up on under some
other O/S (Windows, Linux, whatever). Usually it ends up as 10 (as it is on
this laptop).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
2004-02-09 5:41 ` jmk
@ 2004-02-09 6:00 ` ron minnich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2004-02-09 6:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> An IRQ of 3 is the default in the driver if you don't tell it otherwise,
> it's almost always wrong. Try setting it to whatever it ends up on under
> some other O/S (Windows, Linux, whatever). Usually it ends up as 10 (as
> it is on this laptop).
yes but even if you set it, if the router is not set up right, it won't
end up getting sent to the right place. So setting it is worth a try, but
may not work.
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
2004-02-09 5:33 ` ron minnich
2004-02-09 5:41 ` jmk
@ 2004-02-09 14:56 ` David Presotto
2004-02-09 15:03 ` Charles Forsyth
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: David Presotto @ 2004-02-09 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 187 bytes --]
You can see interrupts in general (/dev/sysstat or the stats program). However
they don't get broken out by device or interrupt level. Easy enough to do for
irq. I'll add it to '#P'.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2862 bytes --]
From: ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:33:49 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402082232100.18308-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Chris Van Horne wrote:
> chipset: Intel 82371AB PIIX4
>
> The PCMCIA yenta is showing on IRQ 11, as is the e100, while the wavelan
> (WPC11 v3) is on IRQ 3.
somebody remind me. How do we see whether plan9 is taking interrupts from
those devices? Sorry, I know the simple command on linux but forget it on
Plan 9. You can do some pings via the wavelan and see if you are getting
tx ints or not, and if not, that's a place to start looking (you've
probably done this).
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
2004-02-09 5:19 ` Chris Van Horne
2004-02-09 5:33 ` ron minnich
@ 2004-02-09 5:34 ` ron minnich
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2004-02-09 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Chris Van Horne wrote:
> chipset: Intel 82371AB PIIX4
another note: this is the southbridge, I'm just curious, what's the
northbridge? This sounds like an older machine, is it?
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100
@ 2004-02-09 3:18 Chris Van Horne
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Chris Van Horne @ 2004-02-09 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
I noticed yesterday after throwing p9 on a toshiba satellite 2805-S301
under a Linksys WPC11 that the network throughput was a horrid 26
kB/sec. The onboard Intel epro100 gave only 640 kB/sec. Anyone have
some ideas that could lead to this or something I could try?
Not sure what other information is needed, but:
128MB RAM, using fossil, disk doesn't feel sluggish.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-09 15:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-02-09 3:43 [9fans] slow throughput on wavelan/epro100 David Presotto
2004-02-09 4:57 ` Chris Van Horne
2004-02-09 5:04 ` ron minnich
2004-02-09 5:19 ` Chris Van Horne
2004-02-09 5:33 ` ron minnich
2004-02-09 5:41 ` jmk
2004-02-09 6:00 ` ron minnich
2004-02-09 14:56 ` David Presotto
2004-02-09 15:03 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-02-09 5:34 ` ron minnich
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-02-09 3:18 Chris Van Horne
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).