Re: low throughput on PPP link
At 05:59 PM 5/29/98 -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
>Well, you need to pass the speed to pppd as 115200, not 57600. You see, the
>set_serial spd_vhi flag sets what speed will be used if 38400 is selected.
>However, pppd can set the speed to 115200 just fine if you specify it. You're
>specifying 57600 and that's what you're getting.
-- Thanks.
I guess that the conventions for pppd and setserial are different then.
So, pppd accepts 115K, and manipulates the combination of baud rate and vhi
appropriately?
also, the reports of "seterial -a" and ifconfig differ, probably a similar
difference in reporting terminology?
>
>> Currently we are building two Debian boxes(2.0.30) running as routers
with a
>> PPP link in between. Things are mostly going fine except the link
throughput.
>> 56kbps is the best it gets while we are expecting over 100kbps since we are
>> using the 16550A UART serial cards.
>>
>> Here's the details:
>> ====== serial port settings =====================
>> /dev/ttyS0, Line 0, UART: 16550A, Port: 0x03f8, IRQ: 4
>> Baud_base: 115200, close_delay: 50, divisor: 0
>> closing_wait: 3000, closing_wait2: infinte
>> Flags: spd_vhi skip_test session_lockout
>>
>> We were acknowledged that a combination of
>> "setserial -b /dev/ttyS0 spd_vhi" and
>> "pppd persist passive proxyarp /dev/ttyS0 38400 &"
>> will achieve the full speed
>> of 115200, yet the testing result we have is just slower that using 57600.
>>
>> as per Robert Hart's Linux PPP HOWTO, nor in "The Linux Serial HOWTO
>> by Greg Hankins".
-- Shouldn't this (also) work?
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Gregory Guthrie
guthrie@mum.edu (515)472-1125 Fax: -1103
Computer Science Department
College of Science and Technology
Maharishi University of Management
(Maharishi International University 1971-1995)
--------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: