- Posts: 114
- Thank you received: 0
Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
3 years 3 months ago #276621
by WKS-3D
Replied by WKS-3D on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
Everything is disabled in the BIOS, no energy management, no Hyper Threading.
The temperatures are good, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.
There are always only peaks in an interval of about 1 minute that I see when I reset the latency test.
I still have an idea what I can try.
The temperatures are good, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.
There are always only peaks in an interval of about 1 minute that I see when I reset the latency test.
I still have an idea what I can try.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 3 months ago #276622
by WKS-3D
Replied by WKS-3D on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
My idea was to pull out the USB to LAN adapter and then run the test again. At first it looked good, but after 15 minutes the value jumped up again, too high.
I have to wait for the new hardware.
No idea what else I can do. I don't feel like it anymore either.
I have to wait for the new hardware.
No idea what else I can do. I don't feel like it anymore either.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 2 months ago #276903
by WKS-3D
Replied by WKS-3D on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
So, new hardware arrived and I reinstalled everything.
Here are the current latency values: (During the test, YouTube videos were playing and I was surfing the net.)
and the PING results:
[/code]
Is this ok or can it be better?
I have worked through the instructions.
Here are the current latency values: (During the test, YouTube videos were playing and I was surfing the net.)
Attachment not found
and the PING results:
Code:
PING 10.10.10.10 (10.10.10.10) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.277 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.260 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.278 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.288 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.284 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.283 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.285 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.278 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=0.280 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=0.277 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=26 ttl=64 time=0.278 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=0.277 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=28 ttl=64 time=0.276 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=29 ttl=64 time=0.282 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=30 ttl=64 time=0.275 ms
64 bytes from 10.10.10.10: icmp_seq=31 ttl=64 time=0.303 ms
^C
--- 10.10.10.10 ping statistics ---
31 packets transmitted, 31 received, 0% packet loss, time 30678ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.260/0.280/0.303/0.006 ms
Is this ok or can it be better?
I have worked through the instructions.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 2 months ago #276910
by PCW
Replied by PCW on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
If the PC has a Intel MAC, you should disable IRQ coalescing
as described in the hm2_eth manual page
(and verify that its off with ethtool -c eno1)
replace eno1 with your ethernet device name if its different
as described in the hm2_eth manual page
(and verify that its off with ethtool -c eno1)
replace eno1 with your ethernet device name if its different
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- tommylight
-
- Away
- Administrator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 22012
- Thank you received: 4
3 years 2 months ago #276912
by tommylight
Replied by tommylight on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
It looks fine.
Did you test without isolcpu ? I really hate knee-capping hardware without a really good reason, so i never used it.
Did you test without isolcpu ? I really hate knee-capping hardware without a really good reason, so i never used it.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 2 months ago #276914
by WKS-3D
Is that what you mean?
Replied by WKS-3D on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
If the PC has a Intel MAC, you should disable IRQ coalescing
as described in the hm2_eth manual page
(and verify that its off with ethtool -c eno1)
replace eno1 with your ethernet device name if its different
Is that what you mean?
Code:
Coalesce parameters for enp4s0:
Adaptive RX: n/a TX: n/a
stats-block-usecs: n/a
sample-interval: n/a
pkt-rate-low: n/a
pkt-rate-high: n/a
rx-usecs: 0
rx-frames: n/a
rx-usecs-irq: n/a
rx-frames-irq: n/a
tx-usecs: n/a
tx-frames: n/a
tx-usecs-irq: n/a
tx-frames-irq: n/a
rx-usecs-low: n/a
rx-frame-low: n/a
tx-usecs-low: n/a
tx-frame-low: n/a
rx-usecs-high: n/a
rx-frame-high: n/a
tx-usecs-high: n/a
tx-frame-high: n/a
CQE mode RX: n/a TX: n/a
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 2 months ago #276915
by WKS-3D
Replied by WKS-3D on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
No I have not. Should I do that?It looks fine.
Did you test without isolcpu ? I really hate knee-capping hardware without a really good reason, so i never used it.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 2 months ago #276916
by PCW
Replied by PCW on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
OK so not Intel Ethernet hardware
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 2 months ago #276917
by WKS-3D
Yes, the network card where the mesa card is attached is an Intel card. The onboard one for the home network is a Realtek one.
Replied by WKS-3D on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
OK so not Intel Ethernet hardware
Yes, the network card where the mesa card is attached is an Intel card. The onboard one for the home network is a Realtek one.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 2 months ago #276918
by WKS-3D
version: 6.1.0-10-rt-amd64
firmware-version: 1.8-0
expansion-rom-version:
bus-info: 0000:04:00.0
supports-statistics: yes
supports-test: yes
supports-eeprom-access: yes
supports-register-dump: yes
supports-priv-flags: yes
Replied by WKS-3D on topic Neue Hardware und schlechter Latency Test
driver: e1000eOK so not Intel Ethernet hardware
version: 6.1.0-10-rt-amd64
firmware-version: 1.8-0
expansion-rom-version:
bus-info: 0000:04:00.0
supports-statistics: yes
supports-test: yes
supports-eeprom-access: yes
supports-register-dump: yes
supports-priv-flags: yes
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.679 seconds
