From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Mon Jan 19 15:08:36 2009 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [MiNT] ethernat download speed From: Alan Hourihane To: Miro Kropacek Cc: mint In-Reply-To: References: <1232324142.13112.0.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:02:12 +0000 Message-Id: <1232395332.13112.44.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: alanh@fairlite.co.uk Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 20:50 +0100, Miro Kropacek wrote: > > Sometimes it's 100KB/s and other times it's 900KB/s. Never got > as high > as 1500KB/s though. > I did do one more experiment -- I took easymint aranym image (gcc > 2.95, some old kernel and mintlib) and compiled freemint kernel + > drivers from scratch. Luckily, your fixes works OK (i.e. fast) for all > my tests. As soon as I replaced inet4.xdd and/or ethernat.xif with > gcc4 version, some very visible performance losses appeared... Try the > the same and I'm sure you'll get 1.5 MB/s as well. (of course, your > ftp server must be reliable). Btw, try it with direct cable > connection, as evil pointed out at ct60 bbs, every connection trough > gateway is much slower than direct one in mintnet. Mmm, I'll try inet4 and see what gives. I'm sure we can sort out the problems. > So it seems we're going to be stuck with old 2.95 for some time yet... I think 2.95 is actually a good reference tool still and will be for quite some time. It's nice to have it around as we still rely on it's output for a lot of things to check against. Alan.