10Mbps+ throughput usb based ethernet recommendation

[Pyun YongHyeon]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:42:30PM -0700, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 06:16:21PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, March 23, 2010 22:01, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > >> Just adding info, I keep getting these outputs from ifconfig:
> > >>
> > >> ue0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu
> > >> 1500
> > >> 	ether 00:11:50:e7:39:e9
> > >> 	inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
> > >> 	media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>)
> > >> 	status: active
> > >> and:
> > >> ue0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu
> > >> 1500
> > >> 	ether 00:11:50:e7:39:e9
> > >> 	inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
> > >> 	media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex,hw-loopback>)
> > >                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >> 	status: active
> > >>
> > >> and this keeps repeating over and over. iperf and on the other end an
> > >
> > > Maybe this is real problem. It seems PHY have trouble to establish
> > > link. This is FreeBSD stable/8 right?
> > 
> > yes. on 7.2 is even worse :(
> > 
> > > Would you show me the output of "devinfo -rv| grep phy"?
> > 
> > /usr/home/matheus]$ devinfo -rv| grep phy
> >                   ukphy0 pnpinfo oui=0x1e model=0x14 rev=0x9 at phyno=1
> 
> axe(4) requires correct resolved speed/link status reported from
> PHY driver. Otherwise it will incorrectly reprogram some registers
> and this can result in unexpected result.
> The OUI 0x1e from the above looks odd and I'm not aware of any PHY
> vendors that reports such OUI. Because FreeBSD does not strictly
> follows OUI decoding defined by IEEE it's also possible that
> FreeBSD incorrectly showed wrong OUI. What is your USB ethernet
> controller model?
> 

Please try this patch and let me know the output on your console.
It will show you "XXX ID1 = 0xYYYY, ID2 = 0xZZZZ".

> > 
> > I'm trying to test it on current, but I think it will be the same (I saw
> > cvs commits till releng 8 creating and all commits are the same ).
> > 
> 
> Unless we fix the PHY issue you would get the same result on
> stable/8.
> 
> > still looking for better performance usb nic :) you think the slower
> > linksys usb200m (axe based also) will have better luck in this link
> > negotiation issue ? (I don't need gigabit, just to break the 10Mbps at
> 
> I have no experience with usb200m so I don't know.
> 
> > start - though breaking the 50Mpbs would be perfert).
> > 
> > thanks,