PDA

View Full Version : Slow Network issue, running out of things to try.



thorvain
06-21-2004, 12:59 AM
I just hacked my SA2 unit, starting with sleeper's iso and followed it up with the "after sleeper" info for SA2s; and everything has gone well. I'm new to tivo hacking, but an old hat with linux and networks.

Right now I have the problem of extremly poor network preformance extracting from the tivo. I've searched to death the forums but cannot find a solution. I'm suspecting the Linksys USB100M is the problem, so tomorrow I'm going to test it on it's own.

I've updated the modules, changed switches, tried a 10 base hub, replaced cables, tried from multiple pc's, forced duplex settings, and kicked the cat. I still can't get above a few k per second, no matter the service (ftp, tytools, tivoweb, tyshow, etc). Video streaming is choppy. I moved the stock ifconfig out of the way and I'm using the busybox version, and no problems are noted in the stats.

If it is the linksys, what would be a recommened replacement brand/model? I've read about the 2.0 USB issues the tivo has, and since it's not going to matter in speed I don't see a reason to get a 2.0 adapter. Mine is a very early SA2, so it may not even be usb 2.0 ports on it, from what I've gathered here.

Thanks in advance for any tips or ideas for things to try.

Mike

neel
06-21-2004, 11:33 PM
Still working on the problem, tonight I tried disabling everything but vserver to see if it was a load problem, but that didn't solve it. Also, I noted tivoweb plus uses a good bit of cpu even when you aren't on the site; though this seems to be normal it makes me wonder what it's doing besids listening to a port. Or maybe it's listening too hard, lol.

Sleeper
06-22-2004, 01:57 AM
I recommend the Netgear FA-120.

Also, there is a fix by BTUx9 to correct the CPU usage issue. Search on his name.

neel
06-22-2004, 07:08 PM
Thanks sleeper (i'm also thorvain btw, didn't realise I had two accounts and logged in with neel, lol). I don't have problems with the Linksys outside of the TiVo, though I doubt an Intel PC running Windows XP is a good test of a MIPS running linux. Good thing I didn't cut up the box and send in the rebate yet, lol.

Mike

MOStyle
06-23-2004, 07:16 AM
When you say poor speeds can you give me a reference speed in KB or kb/sec..

Also, I noticed you referenced using a USB100M..

You are aware that this is only USB 1.1 device, which means nasty slow transfers, right? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 12mbit/sec, whereas USB 2.0 is a max of 480mbit/sec... Big difference, yes?

The ports on SAS2 *are* USB 2 compliant, and with a lil hacking, you can get that advantage... You need to grab yourself a USB200M though...

Gimme a shout if ya need further..

neel
06-24-2004, 12:14 AM
MoStyle, when I said 'a few K per second' that's what I meant =p 2-5K was what the box was topping out at. Also, yes I know the difference in 1.1 vs. 2.0, but as I said I've searched here and learned that the TiVo isn't going to come near the speeds of 2.0, lol.

I ended up returning the Linksys, and getting the FA-120 on Sleeper's word (I'm not sure why, but I think he might know something of how a tivo works =p). That, plus I turned up alot of LinkSys issue posts so there is no way I'll opt for a 200M; I'm not anit-LinkSys, just anit banging my head against a wall. Connect the FA-120, booted, and I was getting speeds of 700-800K, and things were usable (vserve, tserver_mfs, ccxstream, etc).

Since this was a 2.0 device, I went though the time to trackdown the SA2/4 usb 2.0 drivers, installing them, which raised my speeds to 900K-1M, which as expected wasn't a big jump. I suppose I can get better speeds by putting the box in standby or on a channel I don't get, but I actually watch TV on it and not just hack it =D

BTUx9
06-24-2004, 01:45 AM
The performance of USB2.0 isn't what it should be on s2 machines. The cpu usage is WAY too high, and it's most likely a driver issue. I have reports from someone using the 2.4.20 kernel with tweaked drivers who got close to max xfer rate on the usb2, but it wasn't a network adapter, so I can't be 100% sure it's just the driver.

malfunct
06-24-2004, 12:39 PM
The performance of USB2.0 isn't what it should be on s2 machines. The cpu usage is WAY too high, and it's most likely a driver issue. I have reports from someone using the 2.4.20 kernel with tweaked drivers who got close to max xfer rate on the usb2, but it wasn't a network adapter, so I can't be 100% sure it's just the driver.

There is also the hard drive bottleneck, you would have to stop the tivo from recording (tune to blank channels ect) in order to get full hard drive speed. Also MFS access isn't the fastest thing in the world.

johnny
06-24-2004, 01:51 PM
Sounds like a duplex mismatch. Make sure speeds and duplex are the same for all devices. Hard set to half duplex. Even in the corporate world I see tons of problems like this. Hard setting duplex at the switch and workstation cures most of these issues.

Since you can't hard set this on the switch, I sugggest doing so on the PC. Don't ever trust the "auto" setting. For testing I suggest 10baseT half duplex at both the PC and Tivo.

If still a no-go, then connect your PC directly to the Tivo with a cross-over cable.

Sleeper
06-24-2004, 07:56 PM
The performance of USB2.0 isn't what it should be on s2 machines. The cpu usage is WAY too high, and it's most likely a driver issue. I have reports from someone using the 2.4.20 kernel with tweaked drivers who got close to max xfer rate on the usb2, but it wasn't a network adapter, so I can't be 100% sure it's just the driver.

Would you care to elaborate on the setup/settings. Are you saying he got close to 480mbs? I thought that there were three USB modes: low, full & high. I thought that "high" was not available until 2.5.x

BTUx9
06-24-2004, 08:23 PM
Would you care to elaborate on the setup/settings. Are you saying he got close to 480mbs? I thought that there were three USB modes: low, full & high. I thought that "high" was not available until 2.5.x
Wish I could elaborate.
From what I've read, "full" is standard USB1, maxing out at 12Mbps.
"high" is USB2, maxing out at 480Mbps.

Given the xfer rates on USB2 adapters using USB2 drivers, it's definitely above "full", so I believe it must be running at "high" (just poorly).

malfunct
06-25-2004, 10:15 AM
Wish I could elaborate.
From what I've read, "full" is standard USB1, maxing out at 12Mbps.
"high" is USB2, maxing out at 480Mbps.

Given the xfer rates on USB2 adapters using USB2 drivers, it's definitely above "full", so I believe it must be running at "high" (just poorly).

Technically the difference between USB1 and USB2 is not the speed but instead some important control headers in the protocol that were improved/extended in USB2. The full/high designation apply only to USB2 and its fully possible to have a USB2 device (uses the new header format) and have it only go 11mbps. There is also a "slow" speed supported that is like 2mbit.

Oh, I think the power supply current on the USB bus was increased in the spec for USB 2 as well, usb1 was quite underpowered.

bcc
06-25-2004, 02:08 PM
The absolute best performance I've seen out of my FA-120 (with HD Tivo) is 20MBit/sec. That is with the access card pulled, and data being generated from memory not disk:
tivo:/var/local/bin$ ./ttcp -f K -l 131072 -n 1000 -s -t 192.168.1.11
ttcp-t: buflen=131072, nbuf=1000, align=16384/0, port=5001 tcp -> 192.168.1.11
ttcp-t: socket
ttcp-t: connect
ttcp-t: 131072000 bytes in 53.55 real seconds = 2390.29 KB/sec +++
ttcp-t: 1000 I/O calls, msec/call = 54.84, calls/sec = 18.67
ttcp-t: 0.0user 42.0sys 0:53real 78% 0i+0d 0maxrss 1+32pf 0+0csw
tivo:/var/local/bin$ I even made a new ax8817x driver with performance tweaks from linux 2.6 but it didn't help.

BTUx9
06-25-2004, 02:11 PM
Technically the difference between USB1 and USB2 is not the speed but instead some important control headers in the protocol that were improved/extended in USB2. The full/high designation apply only to USB2 and its fully possible to have a USB2 device (uses the new header format) and have it only go 11mbps. There is also a "slow" speed supported that is like 2mbit.

Oh, I think the power supply current on the USB bus was increased in the spec for USB 2 as well, usb1 was quite underpowered.
Where are you getting your information?

Yes, USB2 is backwards-compatible, so it WILL operate at FULL (12Mbps), but the USB2 spec is NOT just a difference in headers from the USB1.1 spec. Hard to imagine a 40x increase in bandwidth from a header change.

Additionally, as I said, the USB2 adapters are peaking ABOVE the 12Mbps, indicating that they are NOT operating in FULL mode, but truly in HI-speed USB2 (albeit poorly).

malfunct
06-25-2004, 02:44 PM
Where are you getting your information?

Yes, USB2 is backwards-compatible, so it WILL operate at FULL (12Mbps), but the USB2 spec is NOT just a difference in headers from the USB1.1 spec. Hard to imagine a 40x increase in bandwidth from a header change.

Additionally, as I said, the USB2 adapters are peaking ABOVE the 12Mbps, indicating that they are NOT operating in FULL mode, but truly in HI-speed USB2 (albeit poorly).

No, I was stating that USB2 isn't why there was a speed increase, the speed increase comes from using the high speed mode of USB2. The place where only headers are different are between USB1 and USB2 Full mode. You can have a USB2 device that is not at 400kbps, the network adapters we are using just happen to be high speed usb2 devices.

There was a lot of confusion around the time that the USB working group came up with the slow/full/high designations for usb2 and people assume that something running at 12Mbps is a USB1 device which isn't necessarily the case, it could be a device that runs in USB2 Full mode which means it takes advantage of the protocol improvements but not the speed improvements.

EDIT: You are fully correct that the maximum speed changed between USB1 and USB2 in case that wasn't clear in my response. Again, I was just trying to say that a device that is USB2 doesn't necessarily support 400Mbps speeds. I was also trying to say that Full is (as best I found on the USB working group website at the time) not a designation that is properly applied to USB1.

BTUx9
06-25-2004, 03:03 PM
EDIT: You are fully correct that the maximum speed changed between USB1 and USB2 in case that wasn't clear in my response. Again, I was just trying to say that a device that is USB2 doesn't necessarily support 400Mbps speeds. I was also trying to say that Full is (as best I found on the USB working group website at the time) not a designation that is properly applied to USB1.
From what I've read, FULL does apply to both USB2 and USB1. It's needed for USB1 because SLOW (1.5Mbps) is also a designation.
http://www.usb.org/faq/ans2#q1

malfunct
06-25-2004, 03:13 PM
From what I've read, FULL does apply to both USB2 and USB1. It's needed for USB1 because SLOW (1.5Mbps) is also a designation.
http://www.usb.org/faq/ans2#q1

Ok cool, but the difference between USB1 and USB2 is not just speed :) It is still the difference in protocol, though the new protocol allows higher speed transfers. Anyways none of this matters for the original question so I won't spin on about it any longer. Thank you for the pointer to that point in the faq, I didn't see that back when I read about it (near to the time they invented the slow/full/high designations in the first place).

slorenzen
01-08-2005, 05:13 PM
After finding this thread and reading about how the FA120 is suppose to increase speed, i went ahead and bought one. The FA120 evidently uses different drivers than the linksys used. I am using a hughes dtivo. Do i need different drivers, and if so, does anyone have them and where to put them in my ftp dtivo?

Jamie
01-08-2005, 05:51 PM
After finding this thread and reading about how the FA120 is suppose to increase speed, i went ahead and bought one. The FA120 evidently uses different drivers than the linksys used. I am using a hughes dtivo. Do i need different drivers, and if so, does anyone have them and where to put them in my ftp dtivo?The FA120 uses the ax8817x kernel module (usbnet in the 2.4.27 usb2 backport module set). There are multiple linksys adapters, so without model information I can not tell you what kernel module it used.

slorenzen
01-08-2005, 06:26 PM
I am using the USB100TX Linksys LAN adapter. These were the drivers installed when i hacked my tivo a few months ago with sleeper. I am hoping if i find the correct driver for the fa120 i can just drop the file using ftp from my pc.

Jamie
01-08-2005, 06:32 PM
I am using the USB100TX Linksys LAN adapter. These were the drivers installed when i hacked my tivo a few months ago with sleeper. I am hoping if i find the correct driver for the fa120 i can just drop the file using ftp from my pc.I believe the usb100tx used the pegasus driver.

The usb2 2.4.27 backport drivers are in this (http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38167) thread. Performance tuning discussions are here (http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39328).