Return-Path: From: Ed Tomlinson To: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Billionton bluetooth CF card: performance is 10KB/sec Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:01:48 -0400 Cc: marcel@holtmann.org, maxk@qualcomm.com, bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kernel list References: <20051022173152.GA2573@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20051022173152.GA2573@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200510221801.49314.tomlins@cam.org> List-ID: On Saturday 22 October 2005 13:31, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > Ping time is around 50msec, and that seems pretty much okay, but > 10KB/sec seems like way too low. > > I am limited to 10KB/sec both on linux-to-linux bnetp transfers and it > limits my transfer rates using edge and n6230, too :-(. > > Ping times during transfer: > > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=149 ttl=64 time=62.8 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=150 ttl=64 time=64.2 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=151 ttl=64 time=85.9 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=152 ttl=64 time=80.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=153 ttl=64 time=132.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=154 ttl=64 time=64.8 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=155 ttl=64 time=128.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=156 ttl=64 time=116.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=157 ttl=64 time=120.5 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=158 ttl=64 time=240.2 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=159 ttl=64 time=111.2 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=160 ttl=64 time=382.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=161 ttl=64 time=912.6 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=162 ttl=64 time=1612.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=163 ttl=64 time=4373.6 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=164 ttl=64 time=5128.8 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=165 ttl=64 time=7191.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=166 ttl=64 time=9473.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=167 ttl=64 time=8469.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=168 ttl=64 time=10040.7 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=169 ttl=64 time=9036.7 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=170 ttl=64 time=10681.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=171 ttl=64 time=9677.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=172 ttl=64 time=8673.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=173 ttl=64 time=10685.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=174 ttl=64 time=9681.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=175 ttl=64 time=8677.0 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=176 ttl=64 time=11997.2 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=177 ttl=64 time=10993.4 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=178 ttl=64 time=9989.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=179 ttl=64 time=13797.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=180 ttl=64 time=12793.3 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=181 ttl=64 time=11789.1 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=182 ttl=64 time=10784.9 ms > 64 bytes from 10.1.0.3: icmp_seq=183 ttl=64 time=9781.1 ms > > Netdev watchdog complains a lot: > > Oct 22 18:53:57 amd pand[2439]: Bluetooth PAN daemon version 2.19 > Oct 22 18:53:57 amd pand[2439]: Connecting to > Oct 22 18:53:58 amd pand[2439]: bnep0 connected > Oct 22 18:54:37 amd kernel: usb 3-1: USB disconnect, address 2 > Oct 22 18:55:33 amd kernel: NETDEV WATCHDOG: bnep0: transmit timed out > Oct 22 18:55:59 amd last message repeated 2 times > Oct 22 18:56:51 amd last message repeated 5 times > Oct 22 18:57:55 amd last message repeated 3 times > Oct 22 18:59:03 amd last message repeated 7 times > > I use this to set up billionton: > > setserial /dev/ttyBT baud_base 921600 > hciattach -s 921600 /dev/ttyBT bcsp > > root@amd:~# tcpspray -n 1 -b 1000000 10.1.0.3 > > Transmitted 1000000 bytes in 163.256781 seconds (5.982 kbytes/s) > > (okay, this was little slower, I was far from other side). Most tests > look like this: > > root@amd:~# tcpspray -n 1 -b 1000000 10.1.0.3 > > Transmitted 1000000 bytes in 103.183640 seconds (9.464 kbytes/s) Pavel, I see about the same with a bluetooth usb adapter. Suspect that is about what you should see with bluetooth - its not designed for speed. It would be really nice to be wrong though... Ed Tomlinson