0.95.4 Embedded - slow speeds problem

rds_correia · Dec 6, 2005, 11:31 PM

I could try a longer cable of 5-10 meters but I won't be able to do that ASAP.
Anyway the status interfaces reports "100baseTX <full-duplex>" for both WAN and LAN.
Now that is odd because my cable modem is a Dlink DCM-200 with a 10Mbit LAN port on it's back which I also believe to be half-duplex…
Could this be the catch?
What can I do to change this settings?
TIA
Cheers</full-duplex>

hoba · Dec 6, 2005, 11:34 PM

Try the hidden options to force the desired mode manually. Sounds like this is an autonegotiation issue. Maybe it solves itself with a longer cable though.

http://faq.pfsense.com/index.php?sid=12261&lang=en&action=artikel&cat=10&id=38&artlang=en&highlight=hidden

rds_correia · Dec 7, 2005, 12:32 AM

Hi there,
I ran ifconfig-m and I got this:

supported media:
media autoselect
media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex
media 100baseTX
media 10baseT/UTP mediaopt full-duplex
media 10baseT/UTP

Now, my config.xml looks like this:

 <wan><if>sis1</if>
	 <mtu><ipaddr>dhcp</ipaddr>
	 <subnet><gateway><blockpriv><disableftpproxy><dhcphostname><media><mediaopt><bandwidth>100</bandwidth>
	<bandwidthtype>Mb</bandwidthtype></mediaopt></media></dhcphostname></disableftpproxy></blockpriv></gateway></subnet></mtu></wan>

Should I edit it to end up like this?

...
	 <dhcphostname><media>10baseT/UTP</media>
	 <mediaopt>...</mediaopt></dhcphostname>

What about the bandwidth and bandwidthtype?
Should I leave them like this?

...
	<bandwidth>100</bandwidth>
	<bandwidthtype>Mb</bandwidthtype>
...

```Or should I edit them to something like this?

...
<bandwidth><bandwidthtype>...</bandwidthtype></bandwidth>

Sorry for all the trouble but I really don't know how to edit the config.xml and this performance issues are really a pain in the a**.
TIA
Cheers :)

sullrich · Dec 7, 2005, 12:36 AM

No, it would look something like this:

<media>media 100baseTX</media>
<mediaopt>full-duplex</mediaopt>

rds_correia · Dec 7, 2005, 12:44 AM

Gee, thanks Scott.
What about those bandwidth and bandwidthtype fields?
Do I leave them as they are?
EDIT:
Oops, almost did this blindly.
You're telling me to use "media 100baseTX" but my cable modem comes with a 10Mbit LAN port.
What do I do?
Cheers

sullrich · Dec 7, 2005, 12:46 AM

Leave bandwidth alone.

Change the value to 10 if you need to.

rds_correia · Dec 7, 2005, 12:49 AM

Ok ;).

sullrich · Dec 7, 2005, 12:51 AM

@rds_correia:

Ok ;).

Also, leave out "media" inside the xml string.

rds_correia · Dec 7, 2005, 1:27 AM

I did exactly as you told me to and my box still won't go faster than 18KB/s…
Here's my log:

Dec 7 01:19:27 	kernel: sis1: Applying short cable fix (reg=e8)
Dec 7 01:19:58 	last message repeated 22 times
Dec 7 01:20:21 	last message repeated 12 times
Dec 7 01:20:24 	kernel: sis1: Applying
Dec 7 01:20:24 	kernel: too many stray irq 7's: not logging anymore
Dec 7 01:20:24 	kernel: short cable fix (reg=e8)
Dec 7 01:20:26 	kernel: sis1: Applying short cable fix (reg=e8)

Oh but my Status > Interfaces > WAN still show "Media 100baseTX <full-duplex>".
Maybe I'm doing something wrong here.
BTW I checked some screenshots I took from my last m0n0 config on this box and it also shows "Media 100baseTX <full-duplex>".
Maybe this media/mediaopt ain't related to my performance issues…
I don't know.
Cheers</full-duplex></full-duplex>

sullrich · Dec 7, 2005, 1:29 AM

I'm at a loss then. The repeated short cable message makes me wonder. It should not be repeating that much.

rds_correia · Dec 7, 2005, 1:38 AM

Yep, me too.
This cable has been replaced more than a dozen times specifically because of logs like this one when I was using m0n0's 1.2betas based upon FreeBSD 5.3 (or was it 5.4?).
But ever since Manuel went back to FreeBSD 4.11 on the latest betas and on the 1.2final the speed issues went away and I made a new CAT-5 cable with ~ 0.5 meter because the modem and the Soekris box are actually stacked on my table.
Maybe the speed issues don't even have anything to do with these "short cable fixes".
I promise that as soon as I feel better I'll go out and buy another cable just to make sure but I think this ain't related with long or small cables.
Cheers

rds_correia · Dec 7, 2005, 2:49 PM

Yes, it's me again ;D.
Take a look at this:
But this goes on:

Dec 7 13:08:42 	kernel: sis1: Applying short cable fix (reg=e8)
Dec 7 13:08:44 	php: : phpDynDNS: (Unknown Response)
Dec 7 13:08:48 	kernel: sis1: Applying short cable fix (reg=e8)
Dec 7 13:09:17 	last message repeated 10 times
Dec 7 13:09:19 	kernel: s
Dec 7 13:09:19 	kernel: stray irq7
Dec 7 13:09:19 	kernel: is1: Applying short cable fix (reg=e8)
Dec 7 13:17:49 	dnsmasq[780]: reading /etc/resolv.conf
Dec 7 13:17:49 	dnsmasq[780]: using nameserver 213.228.128.6#53
Dec 7 13:17:49 	dnsmasq[780]: using nameserver 213.228.128.99#53
Dec 7 13:17:55 	kernel: sis1: Applying short cable fix (reg=e8)
Dec 7 13:18:18 	last message repeated 4 times
Dec 7 13:20:26 	last message repeated 8 times
Dec 7 13:25:01 	kernel: sis1: Applying short cable fix (reg=e8)
Dec 7 13:29:18 	kernel: sis1: Applying short cab
Dec 7 13:29:18 	kernel: too many stray irq 7's: not logging anymore
Dec 7 13:29:18 	kernel: le fix (reg=e8)

So, what's a stray IRQ7 and why do I have too many of those.
Could this be the reason for so many short cable fixes and ultimately for slow netwk performance?

EDITED:
Just went back to m0n0wall 1.2final with the same config (but not the same config.xml file) and networking speed is back.
Here's a m0n0's log:

Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project.
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p11 #0: Wed Sep 7 13:51:02 CEST 2005
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: root@fb411.neon1.net:/usr/src/sys/compile/M0N0WALL_NET45XX
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1189158 Hz
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: CPU: AMD Enhanced Am486DX4/Am5x86 Write-Back (486-class CPU)
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Origin = "AuthenticAMD" Id = 0x494 Stepping = 4
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Features=0x1 <fpu>Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: real memory = 67108864 (65536K bytes)
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: avail memory = 50819072 (49628K bytes)
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Preloaded elf kernel "kernel" at 0xc0e0f000.
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Preloaded mfs_root "/mfsroot" at 0xc0e0f0a8.
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: md0: Preloaded image  11534336 bytes at 0xc030d3bc
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: md1: Malloc disk
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Timecounter "ELAN" frequency 8333333 Hz
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: npx0: <math processor=""> on motherboard</math>
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: npx0: INT 16 interface
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pcib0: <amd elan="" sc520="" host="" to="" pci="" bridge=""> on motherboard
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pci0: <pci bus=""> on pcib0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pcic0: <ti pci-1420="" pci-cardbus="" bridge=""> mem 0xa0000000-0xa0000fff irq 10 at device 17.0 on pci0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pcic0: TI12XX PCI Config Reg: [pwr save][pci only]
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pccard0: <pc card="" 16-bit="" bus="" (classic)=""> on pcic0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pcic1: <ti pci-1420="" pci-cardbus="" bridge=""> mem 0xa0001000-0xa0001fff irq 10 at device 17.1 on pci0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pcic1: TI12XX PCI Config Reg: [pwr save][pci only]
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pccard1: <pc card="" 16-bit="" bus="" (classic)=""> on pcic1
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: sis0: <natsemi 10="" dp83815="" 100basetx=""> port 0xe100-0xe1ff mem 0xa0002000-0xa0002fff irq 11 at device 18.0 on pci0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: sis0: Ethernet address: 00:00:24:c0:e7:e0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: miibus0: <mii bus=""> on sis0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: ukphy0: <generic ieee="" 802.3u="" media="" interface=""> on miibus0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: ukphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: sis1: <natsemi 10="" dp83815="" 100basetx=""> port 0xe200-0xe2ff mem 0xa0003000-0xa0003fff irq 5 at device 19.0 on pci0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: sis1: Ethernet address: 00:00:24:c0:e7:e1
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: miibus1: <mii bus=""> on sis1
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: ukphy1: <generic ieee="" 802.3u="" media="" interface=""> on miibus1
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: ukphy1: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: isa0: <isa bus=""> on motherboard
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: orm0: <option rom=""> at iomem 0xc8000-0xd0fff on isa0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: pmtimer0 on isa0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: ata0 at port 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 irq 14 on isa0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: ata1 at port 0x170-0x177,0x376 irq 15 on isa0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: sio0 at port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4 flags 0x30 on isa0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: sio0: type 16550A, console
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: sio1 at port 0x2f8-0x2ff irq 3 on isa0
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: sio1: type 16550A
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Elan-mmcr driver: MMCR at 0xc597e000
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: BRIDGE 020214 loaded
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: IPsec: Initialized Security Association Processing.
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: IP Filter: v3.4.35 initialized. Default = block all, Logging = enabled
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: ad0: 15MB <sandisk sdcfb-16=""> [490/2/32] at ata0-master BIOSPIO
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/kernel: Mounting root from ufs:/dev/md0c
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dnsmasq[95]: started, version 2.22 cachesize 150
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dnsmasq[95]: setting --bind-interfaces option because of OS limitations
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dnsmasq[95]: setting --bind-interfaces option because of OS limitations
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dnsmasq[95]: read /etc/hosts - 4 addresses
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dnsmasq[95]: failed to access /var/db/dhcpd.leases: No such file or directory
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dnsmasq[95]: failed to access /var/db/dhcpd.leases: No such file or directory
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dhclient: DHCPOFFER from 10.39.0.1
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dnsmasq[95]: reading /etc/resolv.conf
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dhclient: DHCPREQUEST on sis1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/usr/local/bin/ez-ipupdate[98]: ez-ipupdate Version 3.0.11b8, Copyright (C) 1998-2001 Angus Mackay.
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/usr/local/bin/ez-ipupdate[98]: /usr/local/bin/ez-ipupdate started for interface sis1 host WWWWWWW.TTTTTT.net using server members.dyndns.org and service dyndns
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/usr/local/bin/ez-ipupdate[98]: got last update xx.xx.xx.xx on 2005/12/06 16:39 from cache file
Dec 7 14:33:31 	/usr/local/bin/ez-ipupdate[98]: failure to update sis1->0.0.0.0 (WWWWWWW.TTTTTT.net)
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dhclient: DHCPACK from 10.39.0.1
Dec 7 14:33:31 	dhclient: New Network Number: xx.xx.xx.0
Dec 7 14:33:32 	dhclient: New Broadcast Address: xx.xx.xx.255
Dec 7 14:33:32 	dhclient: New IP Address (sis1): xx.xx.xx.58
Dec 7 14:33:32 	dhclient: New Subnet Mask (sis1): 255.255.248.0
Dec 7 14:33:32 	dhclient: New Broadcast Address (sis1): xx.xx.xx.255
Dec 7 14:33:32 	dhclient: New Routers: xx.xx.xx.1
Dec 7 14:33:32 	dhcpd: Internet Systems Consortium DHCP Server V3.0.3
Dec 7 14:33:33 	dhcpd: Copyright 2004-2005 Internet Systems Consortium.
Dec 7 14:33:33 	dhcpd: All rights reserved.
Dec 7 14:33:33 	dhcpd: For info, please visit http://www.isc.org/sw/dhcp/
Dec 7 14:33:33 	dnsmasq[95]: reading /var/db/dhcpd.leases
Dec 7 14:33:37 	/usr/local/bin/ez-ipupdate[98]: SIGHUP recieved, re-reading config file
Dec 7 14:33:37 	/usr/local/bin/ez-ipupdate[98]: failure to update sis1->xx.xx.xx.58 (WWWWWWW.TTTTTT.net)
Dec 7 14:33:41 	dhclient: bound to 84.90.74.58 -- renewal in 2799 seconds.
Dec 7 14:37:03 	dnsmasq[95]: reading /etc/resolv.conf
Dec 7 14:37:03 	dnsmasq[95]: using nameserver 213.228.128.6#53
Dec 7 14:37:03 	dnsmasq[95]: using nameserver 213.228.128.99#53</sandisk></option></isa></generic></mii></natsemi></generic></mii></natsemi></pc></ti></pc></ti></pci></amd></fpu>

I'm lost here.
Why will m0n0 work fine and pfS have these issues?
Same hardware and software configs…
TIA
Cheers

sullrich · Dec 7, 2005, 5:27 PM

I have no idea what is causing this. Perhaps this is one of those cases where m0n0wall is a better fit.

Sorry!

rds_correia · Dec 7, 2005, 5:52 PM

But aren't these embedded images supposed to work on net4501/net4801 and WRAP?
Because my net4521 is really a net4501 with just 2 NICs.
Anyway, no problem pal.
I know you fried your mind with this yesterday.
Thanks for the help.
Cheers

sullrich · Dec 7, 2005, 5:54 PM

@rds_correia:

But aren't these embedded images supposed to work on net4501/net4801 and WRAP?
Because my net4521 is really a net4501 with just 2 NICs.
Anyway, no problem pal.
I know you fried your mind with this yesterday.
Thanks for the help.
Cheers

Yes they work fine. I have tons of 4501's, 4511's and 4801's. In fact, I have 50+.

At any rate, I cannot duplicate this here. I'm pushing 15+ megabit on a 4511.

rds_correia · Dec 7, 2005, 6:40 PM

@sullrich:

At any rate, I cannot duplicate this here. I'm pushing 15+ megabit on a 4511.

Hey! Don't say that!
That will only make me feel more frustrated ;D.
No problem, Scott.
I'll catch you guys when we're more closer to 1.0.
Any time frame for 1.0?
Cheers

rds_correia · Dec 10, 2005, 4:10 PM

Ooops, just noticed the change log for 0.95.8 - currently under download ;-).
Would it be reasonable to say that previous releases had issues with WoL/SNMP/DynDNS and that these have been solved?
Because you see, these were some of my other complaints, that is, besides the slow networking performance.
Cheers

sullrich · Dec 10, 2005, 5:34 PM

@rds_correia:

Ooops, just noticed the change log for 0.95.8 - currently under download ;-).
Would it be reasonable to say that previous releases had issues with WoL/SNMP/DynDNS and that these have been solved?
Because you see, these were some of my other complaints, that is, besides the slow networking performance.
Cheers

Yep. Don't know about the speed problem, but its possible.

rds_correia · Dec 11, 2005, 1:06 AM

Alright!
Cause now I also have a 2 meter CAT5 cable.
I'll test 1st thing in the morning ;).
Cheers

rds_correia · Dec 11, 2005, 3:04 PM

UPDATE! UPDATE!
Currently testing 0.96.
Problem with SNMP and WoL is fixed.
EDITED: WoL is not working. Service still stops whenever I creat a clients list for WoL. Sorry for misleading you.
Still hasn't tested the DynDNS problem but I will do so later on today.
But the real UPDATE is that with a 2 meter cable I still have speeds of up to 100Kb/s.
But then I changed to a (most probably) 5 meter CAT5 cable and I am now surfing even faster than with m0n0.
Speed is now stable between the 400Kb/s and the 456Kb/s.
It's simply the fastest firewall I have seen here at home.
BTW I still get "kernel: sis1: Applying short cable fix (reg=e8)" messages but now they are only a few compared to 0.95.4.
I was wrong about the cable lenght because with m0n0wall I have never seen these issues.
But remember, it took me a 5 meter cable to do the trick.
Thanks a bunch for all the help guys.