Hi,
I have a simple test platform.
One PC connected to an equipment. This equipment is set in AP
mode.
Another PC connected to another equipment. This equipment is set
in STA + WDS mode.
Both equipment use the same openwrt Firmware (compat
2015-07-21), I only changed the ath10k firmware (in
/lib/firmware/ath10k/...).
Both equipment has the same hardware.
I used a clear channel, and VHT80.
The radio was connected with a coaxial cable and I placed 40 dBm
attenuation per Rf chain.
I used the WLN350NX radio card from compex.
First test : ATH10K firmware 10.2.4.70-2 on both equipment
An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC connected
to the STA give 919 Mbps.
An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
connected to the AP give 500 Mbps.
Second test : ATHK firmware 10.2.4.70.10-2 on both equipment
An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC connected
to the STA give 921 Mbps.
An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
connected to the AP give 441 Mbps.
If I cross the computer I have the same result. I did several
time these test and I always have the same result.
Is it the expected result?
What is the recommanded firmware version for each mode?
Thanks for your help.
Cedric Voncken.
On 24 November 2015 at 22:29, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 10:07 AM, Cedric VONCKEN wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a simple test platform.
>> One PC connected to an equipment. This equipment is set in AP
>> mode.
>> Another PC connected to another equipment. This equipment is set
>> in STA + WDS mode.
>>
>> Both equipment use the same openwrt Firmware (compat
>> 2015-07-21), I only changed the ath10k firmware (in
>> /lib/firmware/ath10k/...).
>> Both equipment has the same hardware.
>> I used a clear channel, and VHT80.
>> The radio was connected with a coaxial cable and I placed 40 dBm
>> attenuation per Rf chain.
>> I used the WLN350NX radio card from compex.
>>
>> First test : ATH10K firmware 10.2.4.70-2 on both equipment
>> An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC connected
>> to the STA give 919 Mbps.
>> An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
>> connected to the AP give 500 Mbps.
>>
>> Second test : ATHK firmware 10.2.4.70.10-2 on both equipment
>> An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC connected
>> to the STA give 921 Mbps.
>> An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
>> connected to the AP give 441 Mbps.
>>
>> If I cross the computer I have the same result. I did several
>> time these test and I always have the same result.
>
>
> We see similar. One thing we notice is that if you actually try to send
> less
> throughput, then you get better overall throughput.
>
> In other words, trying to send 1Gbps UDP frames will give you more poor
> throughput than trying to send 650Mbps (in the upload direction).
>
> I thought it might be a poor interaction regarding backoff in the
> ath10k driver/firmware (see the congestion bins in firmware for why
> this is the case), but even fixing that in firmware didn't improve
> the situation in my testing.
If CPU is the bottleneck on DUT than overcommiting the UDP traffic at
the source may lead the ethernet driver to waste CPU cycles on the
DUT.
Michał
On 11/24/2015 08:19 PM, Michal Kazior wrote:
> On 24 November 2015 at 22:29, Ben Greear <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 11/24/2015 10:07 AM, Cedric VONCKEN wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a simple test platform.
>>> One PC connected to an equipment. This equipment is set in AP
>>> mode.
>>> Another PC connected to another equipment. This equipment is set
>>> in STA + WDS mode.
>>>
>>> Both equipment use the same openwrt Firmware (compat
>>> 2015-07-21), I only changed the ath10k firmware (in
>>> /lib/firmware/ath10k/...).
>>> Both equipment has the same hardware.
>>> I used a clear channel, and VHT80.
>>> The radio was connected with a coaxial cable and I placed 40 dBm
>>> attenuation per Rf chain.
>>> I used the WLN350NX radio card from compex.
>>>
>>> First test : ATH10K firmware 10.2.4.70-2 on both equipment
>>> An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC connected
>>> to the STA give 919 Mbps.
>>> An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
>>> connected to the AP give 500 Mbps.
>>>
>>> Second test : ATHK firmware 10.2.4.70.10-2 on both equipment
>>> An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC connected
>>> to the STA give 921 Mbps.
>>> An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
>>> connected to the AP give 441 Mbps.
>>>
>>> If I cross the computer I have the same result. I did several
>>> time these test and I always have the same result.
>>
>>
>> We see similar. One thing we notice is that if you actually try to send
>> less
>> throughput, then you get better overall throughput.
>>
>> In other words, trying to send 1Gbps UDP frames will give you more poor
>> throughput than trying to send 650Mbps (in the upload direction).
>>
>> I thought it might be a poor interaction regarding backoff in the
>> ath10k driver/firmware (see the congestion bins in firmware for why
>> this is the case), but even fixing that in firmware didn't improve
>> the situation in my testing.
>
> If CPU is the bottleneck on DUT than overcommiting the UDP traffic at
> the source may lead the ethernet driver to waste CPU cycles on the
> DUT.
You are correct about the overcommit in general, but our systems are quite
overpowered.
We are testing with 3.5Ghz E5 quad-core systems...it is not just a CPU usage
issue. And, exact same hardware runs great (close to 900Mbps) in AP download mode.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have a simple test platform.
> >>> One PC connected to an equipment. This equipment is set in
> >>> AP mode.
> >>> Another PC connected to another equipment. This equipment
> >>> is set in STA + WDS mode.
> >>>
> >>> Both equipment use the same openwrt Firmware (compat
> >>> 2015-07-21), I only changed the ath10k firmware (in
> >>> /lib/firmware/ath10k/...).
> >>> Both equipment has the same hardware.
> >>> I used a clear channel, and VHT80.
> >>> The radio was connected with a coaxial cable and I placed
> >>> 40 dBm attenuation per Rf chain.
> >>> I used the WLN350NX radio card from compex.
> >>>
> >>> First test : ATH10K firmware 10.2.4.70-2 on both equipment
> >>> An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC
> >>> connected to the STA give 919 Mbps.
> >>> An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
> >>> connected to the AP give 500 Mbps.
> >>>
> >>> Second test : ATHK firmware 10.2.4.70.10-2 on both equipment
> >>> An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC
> >>> connected to the STA give 921 Mbps.
> >>> An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
> >>> connected to the AP give 441 Mbps.
> >>>
> >>> If I cross the computer I have the same result. I did
> >>> several time these test and I always have the same result.
> >>
> >>
> >> We see similar. One thing we notice is that if you actually try to
> >> send less throughput, then you get better overall throughput.
> >>
> >> In other words, trying to send 1Gbps UDP frames will give you more
> >> poor throughput than trying to send 650Mbps (in the upload direction).
> >>
> >> I thought it might be a poor interaction regarding backoff in the
> >> ath10k driver/firmware (see the congestion bins in firmware for why
> >> this is the case), but even fixing that in firmware didn't improve
> >> the situation in my testing.
> >
> > If CPU is the bottleneck on DUT than overcommiting the UDP traffic at
> > the source may lead the ethernet driver to waste CPU cycles on the
> > DUT.
>
> You are correct about the overcommit in general, but our systems are quite
> overpowered.
>
> We are testing with 3.5Ghz E5 quad-core systems...it is not just a CPU
> usage issue. And, exact same hardware runs great (close to 900Mbps) in AP
> download mode.
>
In my case I'm testing with mips 64 dual core at 1.2 GHz. The CPU load is around 50% during my test. I'm agree with Ben, the issue is not in CPU.
I tried this morning with different firmware version. I only change the ath10K firmware in client side and I only test the client Tx performance.
Test with firmware 999.999.0.636
Unfortunately this firmware does not support the WDS mode, I need to update my setting. With this firmware I have a better performance, I can reach 700 Mbps.
Test with firmware 10.1.467-ct-15 from candelatech (full community version)
I tested in WDS setting and the same setting of previous firmware to be sure the setting have no impact on the performance. In both case I can reach around 650 Mbps.
I tested with beta-16 firmware from candelatech, but I have a similar performance.
Thanks
Cedric.
On 11/24/2015 10:07 AM, Cedric VONCKEN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a simple test platform.
> One PC connected to an equipment. This equipment is set in AP
> mode.
> Another PC connected to another equipment. This equipment is set
> in STA + WDS mode.
>
> Both equipment use the same openwrt Firmware (compat
> 2015-07-21), I only changed the ath10k firmware (in
> /lib/firmware/ath10k/...).
> Both equipment has the same hardware.
> I used a clear channel, and VHT80.
> The radio was connected with a coaxial cable and I placed 40 dBm
> attenuation per Rf chain.
> I used the WLN350NX radio card from compex.
>
> First test : ATH10K firmware 10.2.4.70-2 on both equipment
> An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC connected
> to the STA give 919 Mbps.
> An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
> connected to the AP give 500 Mbps.
>
> Second test : ATHK firmware 10.2.4.70.10-2 on both equipment
> An iperf from PC connected to the AP to the PC connected
> to the STA give 921 Mbps.
> An iperf from PC connected to the STA to the PC
> connected to the AP give 441 Mbps.
>
> If I cross the computer I have the same result. I did several
> time these test and I always have the same result.
We see similar. One thing we notice is that if you actually try to send less
throughput, then you get better overall throughput.
In other words, trying to send 1Gbps UDP frames will give you more poor
throughput than trying to send 650Mbps (in the upload direction).
I thought it might be a poor interaction regarding backoff in the
ath10k driver/firmware (see the congestion bins in firmware for why
this is the case), but even fixing that in firmware didn't improve
the situation in my testing.
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Is it the expected result?
> What is the recommanded firmware version for each mode?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Cedric Voncken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com