QCA9880 3x3 80Mhz low performance

[Ben Greear]

Looks like it is driver and/or OS related then, not related to
firmware.

So, maybe next see if you can get the ath10k driver to work in
the QCA OS, or get the QCA driver to work in the LEDE OS (replacing
ath10k driver).

Thanks,
Ben

On 02/12/2017 10:09 PM, Phyu The wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> Kindly see attached that I run with Ixchariot used exact same configuration and set up environment.
>
> thanks,
> Phyuthe
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Ben Greear
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 1:13 PM
> To: Phyu The ; Sebastian Gottschall ; ath10k at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: QCA9880 3x3 80Mhz low performance
>
> I would try to narrow down where the performance issue happens.
>
> So, for instance, could you run the exact same ath10k firmware (and board.bin, etc) that you are using
> in LEDE with the QCA driver?  That would determine if it is firmware related or not.
>
> Can you compile just the QCA driver into LEDE to see if that makes a difference?
>
> You are using the exact same networking setup in all cases?
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>
> On 02/12/2017 07:42 PM, Phyu The wrote:
>> Dear Ben,
>>
>> I tested same set up with QCA driver, I can achieve 984Mbps. With Ath10k driver, throughput stuck at 640Mpbs. Can you give me any suggestion?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Phyuthe
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Ben Greear
>> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 12:14 AM
>> To: Phyu The ; Sebastian Gottschall ; ath10k at lists.infradead.org
>> Subject: Re: QCA9880 3x3 80Mhz low performance
>>
>> I don't know.  I would first suggest that you try an x86 platform with
>> powerful CPU in your own test environment.  Possibly we are just using
>> a better isolation chamber or have some other advantage in our environment
>> or test setup.
>>
>> If you can reproduce our good results with x86 in your setup, then you can
>> be more sure it is something to do with your particular platform.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ben
>>
>> On 02/09/2017 11:11 PM, Phyu The wrote:
>>> Dear Ben,
>>>
>>> According to your test result of QCA9880 3x3, what could be the low performance issue at my side IPQ8064+QCA9880 with Ath10k? Is it really CPU related problem
>>> on WPQ864?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Phyuthe
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ben Greear
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 4:24 AM
>>> To: Sebastian Gottschall ; Phyu The ; ath10k at lists.infradead.org
>>> Subject: Re: QCA9880 3x3 80Mhz low performance
>>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> We ran some more tests using our x86 based platforms with 9880 NICs and 9984 NICs
>>> acting as both AP and Station.  This is in an isolation chamber, wired up with SMA cables
>>> and variable attenuator, in as perfect of a condition as we can manage.
>>>
>>> First, here is LANforge acting as AP and station devices, using QCA9880 3x3 hardware:
>>>
>>> http://www.candelatech.com/images/data-comp-01-13-2017-144224-lf-ap.png
>>>
>>> And with 9984 systems:
>>>
>>> http://www.candelatech.com/images/data-comp-01-19-2017-1706-lf-ap-sta-9984.png
>>>
>>> In case you read closely and wonder, 'Armageddon' is our modified version of pktgen.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ben
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/12/2017 01:24 AM, Sebastian Gottschall wrote:
>>>> @ben greear. it cannot be cpu related. the ipq8064 has 1.2 ghz and is a very fast arm core. the platform handles 9984 with much higher speed.
>>>> i got notice of the same issue reported by people on various cpu platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Am 12.01.2017 um 09:15 schrieb Phyu The:
>>>>> Dear Ben,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your reply and suggestion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have tried as your suggestion to test IPQ8064+QCA9880 with Ath10k CT firmware/driver to run throughput UDP/TCP. Unfortunately, I could not be able to see
>>>>> throughput improvement. Could you please suggest what may cause low throughput?
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Phyuthe
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ben Greear
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:59 AM
>>>>> To: Phyu The ; ath10k at lists.infradead.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: QCA9880 3x3 80Mhz low performance
>>>>>
>>>>> We have not done a lot of testing in AP mode, but when using 9880 3x3 compex NICs
>>>>> in our 2U rackmounts (high end Intel E5 processors), and with CT firmware/drivers,
>>>>> we see near 950Mbps UDP download in station mode.  I think we were a bit slower in
>>>>> AP mode, but not that much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you testing TCP or UDP traffic?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.candelatech.com/images/data-comp-07-20-2016-1147-with-labels.png
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you tried normal STA/AP mode instead of WDS?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you are CPU bound on your platform?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ben
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/10/2017 05:09 PM, Phyu The wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Ben,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I configured AP_WDS and Sta_WDS mode, channel 149, 11ac, 3x3, 80MHz and without encryption. I used 2 RF boxes with 3 adjustable attenuators running throughput
>>>>>> by Ixchairot to get best performance. However, throughput seems limited to 640Mbps. Kindly see attached for your reference for more details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Phyuthe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ben Greear
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:37 PM
>>>>>> To: Phyu The ; ath10k at lists.infradead.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: QCA9880 3x3 80Mhz low performance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should provide a lot more information about how you configured and tested the system,
>>>>>> including traffic generator and RF environment, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/09/2017 10:19 PM, Phyu The wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Sir,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tested performance throughput test used WPQ864 + QCA9880 11ac 80MHz is 640Mbps that is very low since theoretical data rate is 1300Mbps. It should be at
>>>>>>> least 866Mbps. Could you please suggest me how to get better performance?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>> Phyuthe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> ath10k mailing list
>>>>>>> ath10k at lists.infradead.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com