Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 286

Thread: MFS Soapbox Derby: aka what is your download speed?

  1. #256
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamie View Post
    Nope. USB1.1 is limited to 12mbps, and it isn't very efficient at packing data into that bandwidth, so in practice you are lucky if you can get 6mbps. 600-800KB/sec is typically the peak rate you'll see from a usb1.1 device. With the asix based devices like the FA-120, you should get at least 2MB/sec, and 3-3.5MB/sec if you are willing to do all the tweaks (custom kernel, etc). gige+jumbo can get you up to 5-6MB/sec These are extraction speeds. insertion is a little slower.
    understood.. but, how many of the custom tweeks are still around that have not already been incorperated into the drivers ? Am i reading the threads linked on the first post & others wrong, or are these tweaks only effective on dtivos ?

  2. #257
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by ercdvs View Post
    understood.. but, how many of the custom tweeks are still around that have not already been incorperated into the drivers ? Am i reading the threads linked on the first post & others wrong, or are these tweaks only effective on dtivos ?
    See the Soapbox Derby thread. Things that help: use the current mfs-utils, use a custom kernel with CONFIG_NETFILTER turned off, tune to non-existent channels to stop the live buffering, etc.

    The only thing that is old news because it is now the default in the drivers is the log2_irq_thresh=4 tweak.

    Same tweaks apply to SA tivos and dtivos. I believe that standby mode turns off live buffering on the dtivos, but not on the SA, but other than that the issues and tweaks are all the same.
    Last edited by Jamie; 02-28-2007 at 12:37 PM.

  3. #258
    blickdot Guest
    The most I've been able to get out of my SA T800 is ~1.5MB/sec. Using all the above mentioned tweaks. That is download out of TiVo, going through my D-Link 100MB switch. See my sig. for Tivo Specs.

  4. #259
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by blickdot View Post
    The most I've been able to get out of my SA T800 is ~1.5MB/sec. Using all the above mentioned tweaks. That is download out of TiVo, going through my D-Link 100MB switch. See my sig. for Tivo Specs.
    Yes. Series 2.5's (rather than Series 2's) have inferior usb implementations. Sounds like you are about par for the course.

  5. #260
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    23

    MFS speed on an S3

    Using MFS_FTP on my hacked S3 i get

    transfer to PC - 3.88 MB/s on a 2.4 GB analog recording

    PC -> Tivo - 2.20 MB/s on a 2.1 GB mpg

    I did nothing to optimize the speed so dual tuner live buffering was running at this time.

    This is using a 100 speed wired Ethernet cable with tivo software 8.0.1c

    Of course everything is encrypted so besides measuring the speed, there isn't much point.

  6. #261
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    240
    Can someone comment as to the download speed that have had with the new drivers on 6.3c ?

    Mine:

    2.1M extraction
    4.0M insertion

    That is the best I have ever had for insertion, but my extraction speed has been better with 3.1.5f (3.5M).

    Just curious what others have had...thanks

  7. #262
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    56
    I have a Dtivo with 6.2 on it and an Airlink 101. I am getting 1.2MB/sec with mfs_ftp which is double what I was getting before upgrading the drivers and USB adapter from 1.1. I am using:

    * 2.4.20 backport drivers

    * Unified MFS software

    I am wondering if I can squeeze any more out of this. I noticed that after I installed the backport drivers and did a test I got 1.2MB/Sec. I then removed ax8817x.o, created the link from usbnet.o to ax8817x.o and rebooted and got the same speed. Is that normal?

  8. #263
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    648
    If you have the AGIGAUSB adapter, you can squeeze a little more out by enabling jumbo frames (MTU=9000 vs 1500) if you haven't done that already.

    The only way beyond that is a kernel monte. It's a little hairy. Search for posts by "drez". He helped me out.

  9. #264
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by dburckh View Post
    If you have the AGIGAUSB adapter, you can squeeze a little more out by enabling jumbo frames (MTU=9000 vs 1500) if you haven't done that already.

    The only way beyond that is a kernel monte. It's a little hairy. Search for posts by "drez". He helped me out.
    No, I have the ASOHOUSB airlink. I take it that adjustment won't help me?

  10. #265
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    65
    Is it yet possible to do USB 2.0 host-to-host from HR10-250 to WinXP? I saw some pretty old postings talking about it not yet being possible back then, so I'm suspecting that its still not possible, but I'm still holding out hope.

    Isn't USB 2.0 host-to-host still faster than GIGE?

  11. #266
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,075
    Quote Originally Posted by opticalcarrier View Post
    Is it yet possible to do USB 2.0 host-to-host from HR10-250 to WinXP? I saw some pretty old postings talking about it not yet being possible back then, so I'm suspecting that its still not possible, but I'm still holding out hope.

    Isn't USB 2.0 host-to-host still faster than GIGE?
    As far as I know, nothing has changed. The windows drivers for the host-to-host cables use a different, Microsoft proprietary, framing protocol, that isn't supported in the backport driver.

  12. #267
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    648

    Not All Gigabit Switches Support Jumbo Frames

    I found this out the hard way. Most of the gigabit switches with wireless (including my Linksys 350N) do NOT support jumbo frames. Further a number of wired only switches don't support jumbo frames. Gigabit does not automatically mean jumbo frame support.

    I was wondering how people were getting these fantastic numbers with jumbo frames enabled and I wasn't with the same hardware. My cards were falling back to a standard frame due to my router not supporting jumbo frames.

  13. #268
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    59
    It is still a sad state of affairs with regards to JF support in the SoHo market.

    Some of the newer Linksys and Netgear switches claim to have JF support,
    but I am still quite pleased with my SMC 8508T units.

  14. #269
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    235
    Here are some raw numbers for the TiVoHD

    TivoHD, 100mbps, stock kernel (except initrd), stock driver (built in NIC)
    Code:
    TiVoHD:/# netperf -H 192.168.168.4 -- -S 65536 -s 65536
    TCP STREAM TEST to 192.168.168.4
    Recv   Send    Send
    Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
    Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
    bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
    
     65536 131070 131070    10.01      32.77
    TivoHD, 1000mbps, custom kernel, agigausb
    Code:
    TiVoHD:/# netperf -H 192.168.168.4 -- -S 65536 -s 65536
    TCP STREAM TEST to 192.168.168.4
    Recv   Send    Send
    Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
    Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
    bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
    
     65536 131070 131070    10.01      38.93
    TivoHD, 100mbps, custom kernel, bcmemac driver (built in NIC)
    Code:
    TiVoHD:/var/hack# netperf -H 192.168.168.4 -- -S 65536 -s 65536
    TCP STREAM TEST to 192.168.168.4
    Recv   Send    Send
    Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
    Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
    bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
    
     65536 131070 131070    10.01      44.08
    TivoHD, 1000mbps, jumbo frames, custom kernel, agigausb
    Code:
    TiVoHD:/# netperf -H 192.168.168.4 -- -S 65536 -s 65536
    TCP STREAM TEST to 192.168.168.4
    Recv   Send    Send
    Socket Socket  Message  Elapsed
    Size   Size    Size     Time     Throughput
    bytes  bytes   bytes    secs.    10^6bits/sec
    
     65536 131070 131070    10.01      77.83

  15. #270
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,076
    Those tivohd numbers make me wonder if the bcmenet driver could be hacked to support larger MTUs. I see it's hard coded at 0x600 max right now. If the broadcom chip is actually capable of a larger mtu, I'd think that'd provide the best performance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •