On Sunday 27 May 2007, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Sunday 27 May 2007 23:13:32 Michael Buesch wrote: > > On Sunday 27 May 2007 21:25:17 Maximilian Engelhardt wrote: > > > 2.6.21.1: > > > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 58414 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001 > > > [ 5] 0.0-60.6 sec 1.13 MBytes 157 Kbits/sec > > > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 57837 > > > [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 2.82 MBytes 375 Kbits/sec > > > > > > 2.6.22-rc3: > > > [ 5] local 192.168.1.2 port 46557 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 5001 > > > [ 5] 0.0-60.4 sec 58.9 MBytes 8.18 Mbits/sec > > > [ 4] local 192.168.1.2 port 5001 connected with 192.168.1.1 port 51633 > > > [ 4] 0.0-63.1 sec 7.27 MBytes 967 Kbits/sec > > > > This is the diff between these two kernels. > > I'm not sure why you see a much better TX throughput here. > > > > Can you re-check to make sure it's not just some test-jitter? > > Oh, eh, and what I forgot to ask: > Do you know an old kernel that works perfectly well for you, > so I can look at a diff between this one and anything >=2.6.21.1. I don't know any, most older kernels did work fine for me, but I never user iperf there so I guess if the bug is there also I simply didn't trigger it. If you think it's usefull I could go back and try different kernels, but that would take some time. Except the iperf bug 2.6.21.1 and 2.6.22-rc3 work fine. Maxi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
