foundry27 : Post

Forum Topic - DHCP server is too slow.: (12 Items)

View: as

Jongpil Won

07/15/2008 10:57 PM

post10571

Hello, 
I'm not sure whether this board is a proper place to post this issue or not.

I have two PC. One is QNX PC and the other is Linux.
Neutrino 6.3.2 version was installed on QNX PC, and Fedora core 3 with kernel 2.6.18 was installed on Linux.

They has a dhcp server on each systems.

The dhcp client was a notebook which is run on Windows XP. 

All three systems have an ethernet interface.

I used a very simple and same configureation file for DHCP server on QNX and Linux.

It tooks about 1 minute for dhcp client to get an IP address from DHCP server on QNX. But when I get an IP address from 
Linux, it tooks only 1 second.

I'd like to know why dhcp server is too slow than linux. and how could dhcp server on QNX be more fast?

I've attached two packet capture files for your information. I used wireshark tools to capture packet on dhcp client.

If  you have any comment, please let me know.

Attachment:

packet_capture.zip 1.02 KB

Robert Craig

RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Robert Craig

07/17/2008 12:46 PM

post10661

RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi:
	Looking through the packet traces, my first guess is that the
DHCP server on QNX hasn't been fully initialized (maybe the Ethernet PHY
hasn't settled or the machine is not accessible?) for the first 60
seconds.  The first four DHCP discover packets aren't being answered and
there's an exponential back off period between each discover packet.
Once the discover gets through, the actual DHCP transaction time is
pretty much the same as Linux (around 0.25 seconds).

	So the question is, are the discover packets being lost or is
the server not answering them?  

How long do you wait after the QNX DHCP server is up before you start
the DHCP transaction?  If you do another DHCP transaction (do a release
/ renew) right after the first one completes, does it take the same
period of time as the first one?

Are you using io-pkt or io-net as your network stack?  I'll try and
reproduce this here and see what turns up.

	Robert.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jongpil Won [mailto:skypiri@lge.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:58 PM
To: general-networking
Subject: DHCP server is too slow.

Hello, 
I'm not sure whether this board is a proper place to post this issue or
not.

I have two PC. One is QNX PC and the other is Linux.
Neutrino 6.3.2 version was installed on QNX PC, and Fedora core 3 with
kernel 2.6.18 was installed on Linux.

They has a dhcp server on each systems.

The dhcp client was a notebook which is run on Windows XP. 

All three systems have an ethernet interface.

I used a very simple and same configureation file for DHCP server on QNX
and Linux.

It tooks about 1 minute for dhcp client to get an IP address from DHCP
server on QNX. But when I get an IP address from Linux, it tooks only 1
second.

I'd like to know why dhcp server is too slow than linux. and how could
dhcp server on QNX be more fast?

I've attached two packet capture files for your information. I used
wireshark tools to capture packet on dhcp client.

If  you have any comment, please let me know.

_______________________________________________
General
http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post10571

Dave Brown

07/17/2008 1:21 PM

post10663

RE: DHCP server is too slow.

When using the debug option for dhcpd, it will log the arrival of
discovery and other packets as well as when dhcpd responds, so you can
compare when the discover packet was actually read in by the dhcpd
application. 

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Craig [mailto:rcraig@qnx.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:46 PM
> To: general-networking
> Subject: RE: DHCP server is too slow.
> 
> Hi:
> 	Looking through the packet traces, my first guess is that the
> DHCP server on QNX hasn't been fully initialized (maybe the Ethernet
PHY
> hasn't settled or the machine is not accessible?) for the first 60
> seconds.  The first four DHCP discover packets aren't being answered
and
> there's an exponential back off period between each discover packet.
> Once the discover gets through, the actual DHCP transaction time is
> pretty much the same as Linux (around 0.25 seconds).
> 
> 	So the question is, are the discover packets being lost or is
> the server not answering them?
> 
> How long do you wait after the QNX DHCP server is up before you start
> the DHCP transaction?  If you do another DHCP transaction (do a
release
> / renew) right after the first one completes, does it take the same
> period of time as the first one?
> 
> Are you using io-pkt or io-net as your network stack?  I'll try and
> reproduce this here and see what turns up.
> 
> 	Robert.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jongpil Won [mailto:skypiri@lge.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:58 PM
> To: general-networking
> Subject: DHCP server is too slow.
> 
> Hello,
> I'm not sure whether this board is a proper place to post this issue
or
> not.
> 
> I have two PC. One is QNX PC and the other is Linux.
> Neutrino 6.3.2 version was installed on QNX PC, and Fedora core 3 with
> kernel 2.6.18 was installed on Linux.
> 
> They has a dhcp server on each systems.
> 
> The dhcp client was a notebook which is run on Windows XP.
> 
> All three systems have an ethernet interface.
> 
> I used a very simple and same configureation file for DHCP server on
QNX
> and Linux.
> 
> It tooks about 1 minute for dhcp client to get an IP address from DHCP
> server on QNX. But when I get an IP address from Linux, it tooks only
1
> second.
> 
> I'd like to know why dhcp server is too slow than linux. and how could
> dhcp server on QNX be more fast?
> 
> I've attached two packet capture files for your information. I used
> wireshark tools to capture packet on dhcp client.
> 
> If  you have any comment, please let me know.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post10571
> 
> _______________________________________________
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post10661

Robert Craig

RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Robert Craig

07/17/2008 5:22 PM

post10680

RE: DHCP server is too slow.

I've put together a quick test setup that had addresses being delivered
in < 1s from the QNX DHCP server, so there must be something else going
wrong with your server.

As a side note, the released version of dhcpd on 6.3.2 doesn't work with
io-pkt so I'm assuming that you must be using io-net.


	Robert.



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Craig 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:46 PM
To: 'post10571@community.qnx.com'
Subject: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi:
	Looking through the packet traces, my first guess is that the
DHCP server on QNX hasn't been fully initialized (maybe the Ethernet PHY
hasn't settled or the machine is not accessible?) for the first 60
seconds.  The first four DHCP discover packets aren't being answered and
there's an exponential back off period between each discover packet.
Once the discover gets through, the actual DHCP transaction time is
pretty much the same as Linux (around 0.25 seconds).

	So the question is, are the discover packets being lost or is
the server not answering them?  

How long do you wait after the QNX DHCP server is up before you start
the DHCP transaction?  If you do another DHCP transaction (do a release
/ renew) right after the first one completes, does it take the same
period of time as the first one?

Are you using io-pkt or io-net as your network stack?  I'll try and
reproduce this here and see what turns up.

	Robert.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jongpil Won [mailto:skypiri@lge.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:58 PM
To: general-networking
Subject: DHCP server is too slow.

Hello, 
I'm not sure whether this board is a proper place to post this issue or
not.

I have two PC. One is QNX PC and the other is Linux.
Neutrino 6.3.2 version was installed on QNX PC, and Fedora core 3 with
kernel 2.6.18 was installed on Linux.

They has a dhcp server on each systems.

The dhcp client was a notebook which is run on Windows XP. 

All three systems have an ethernet interface.

I used a very simple and same configureation file for DHCP server on QNX
and Linux.

It tooks about 1 minute for dhcp client to get an IP address from DHCP
server on QNX. But when I get an IP address from Linux, it tooks only 1
second.

I'd like to know why dhcp server is too slow than linux. and how could
dhcp server on QNX be more fast?

I've attached two packet capture files for your information. I used
wireshark tools to capture packet on dhcp client.

If  you have any comment, please let me know.

_______________________________________________
General
http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post10571

Jongpil Won

07/17/2008 9:57 PM

post10684

Re: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi,

I'm using QNX PC with 6.3.2 released version and I've tested with io-pkt not io-net. The release version of io-pkt is 
448.

I'll explain my issue more specifically, so I hope you understand more easily.
As I said, DHCP server is running on QNX PC. QNX PC an ethernet network card from 3Com (3c905C).

I've tested dhcp transaction with 3 clients. 
All clients tried to get IP address from a dhcp server after they were booting up.

I'll put my test result below. I ran dhcp server with debug option.

[/var/state/dhcp/]#dhcpd -d en1
Internet Software Consortium DHCP Server V3.0pl2
Copyright 1995-2003 Internet Software Consortium.
All rights reserved.
Wrote 0 leases to leases file.
Listening on Socket/en1/192.168.0.0/24
Sending on   Socket/en1/192.168.0.0/24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:1d:7d:07:08:fa via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.130 to 00:1d:7d:07:08:fa (Vista-Ent) via en1
DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.0.130 (192.168.0.254) from 00:1d:7d:07:08:fa (Vista-Ent) via en1
DHCPACK on 192.168.0.130 to 00:1d:7d:07:08:fa (Vista-Ent) via en1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Comment] From this log, dhcp server seems to be normal. The PC(whose name is Vista-Ent) gets an IP address within 1s. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.129
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPINFORM from 192.168.0.130 via en1
DHCPACK to 192.168.0.130
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.129
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.129
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.129
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.0.129 (192.168.0.254) from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPACK on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:e0:91:0b:71:72 via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.128 to 00:e0:91:0b:71:72 (NoteWayne) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.128
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:e0:91:0b:71:72 (NoteWayne) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.128 to 00:e0:91:0b:71:72 (NoteWayne) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.128
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:e0:91:0b:71:72 (NoteWayne) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.128 to 00:e0:91:0b:71:72 (NoteWayne) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.128
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or...

View Full Message

Robert Craig

07/18/2008 11:03 AM

post10728

RE: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi:
	Yes.  
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory

This is exactly the problem that exists with using the released dhcpd
with io-pkt.  We've fixed it internally to work with our upcoming 6.4
release, but it needs further modification to work on 6.3.2.  Is there
any chance of you using io-net on 6.3.2 in the meantime or do you have a
WiFi driver that requires io-pkt?

	Robert.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jongpil Won [mailto:skypiri@lge.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:58 PM
To: general-networking
Subject: Re: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi,

I'm using QNX PC with 6.3.2 released version and I've tested with io-pkt
not io-net. The release version of io-pkt is 448.

I'll explain my issue more specifically, so I hope you understand more
easily.
As I said, DHCP server is running on QNX PC. QNX PC an ethernet network
card from 3Com (3c905C).

I've tested dhcp transaction with 3 clients. 
All clients tried to get IP address from a dhcp server after they were
booting up.

I'll put my test result below. I ran dhcp server with debug option.

[/var/state/dhcp/]#dhcpd -d en1
Internet Software Consortium DHCP Server V3.0pl2
Copyright 1995-2003 Internet Software Consortium.
All rights reserved.
Wrote 0 leases to leases file.
Listening on Socket/en1/192.168.0.0/24
Sending on   Socket/en1/192.168.0.0/24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:1d:7d:07:08:fa via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.130 to 00:1d:7d:07:08:fa (Vista-Ent) via en1
DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.0.130 (192.168.0.254) from 00:1d:7d:07:08:fa
(Vista-Ent) via en1
DHCPACK on 192.168.0.130 to 00:1d:7d:07:08:fa (Vista-Ent) via en1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
[Comment] From this log, dhcp server seems to be normal. The PC(whose
name is Vista-Ent) gets an IP address within 1s. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.129
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPINFORM from 192.168.0.130 via en1
DHCPACK to 192.168.0.130
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.129
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.129
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.129
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or directory
dhcpd: Failed to set entry in the ARP table: No such file or directory
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.0.129 (192.168.0.254) from 00:04:76:ee:40:69
(SkyDesk) via en1
DHCPACK on 192.168.0.129 to 00:04:76:ee:40:69 (SkyDesk) via en1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
DHCPDISCOVER from 00:e0:91:0b:71:72 via en1
DHCPOFFER on 192.168.0.128 to 00:e0:91:0b:71:72 (NoteWayne) via en1
Updating ARP cache entry for 192.168.0.128
dhcpd: Could not open /dev/io-net/ip_en: m: No such file or...

View Full Message

Jongpil Won

07/21/2008 1:36 AM

post10775

Re: RE: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi, 

Yes, I have WiFi interface on my target board.
So I should use io-pkt in that board.
Could you let me know the time line of 6.4 release?

And when is it possible to use dhcp server without any problem on 6.3.2 ?

Sean Boudreau(deleted)

Re: RE: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Sean Boudreau(deleted)

07/21/2008 9:17 AM

post10783

Re: RE: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:36:41AM -0400, Jongpil Won wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> Yes, I have WiFi interface on my target board.
> So I should use io-pkt in that board.
> Could you let me know the time line of 6.4 release?
> 
> And when is it possible to use dhcp server without any problem on 6.3.2 ?

I'll look into making the required mods so that it
works with io-pkt on all os versions shortly.

-seanb

Robert Craig

RE: RE: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Robert Craig

07/21/2008 10:45 AM

post10801

RE: RE: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi:
	For information's sake, 6.4 is due out later this year.  We're
going to be posting an experimental build for people to try sometime in
the upcoming weeks (unfortunately, the current build doesn't have dhcpd
repaired in it, but we can get a working copy to you).

	Robert.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jongpil Won [mailto:skypiri@lge.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:37 AM
To: general-networking
Subject: Re: RE: RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi, 

Yes, I have WiFi interface on my target board.
So I should use io-pkt in that board.
Could you let me know the time line of 6.4 release?

And when is it possible to use dhcp server without any problem on 6.3.2
?



_______________________________________________
General
http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post10775

Sean Boudreau(deleted)

Re: DHCP server is too slow.

Sean Boudreau(deleted)

07/22/2008 11:23 AM

post10858

Re: DHCP server is too slow.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:57:41PM -0400, Jongpil Won wrote:
> Hello, 
> I'm not sure whether this board is a proper place to post this issue or not.
> 
> I have two PC. One is QNX PC and the other is Linux.
> Neutrino 6.3.2 version was installed on QNX PC, and Fedora core 3 with kernel 2.6.18 was installed on Linux.
> 
> They has a dhcp server on each systems.
> 
> The dhcp client was a notebook which is run on Windows XP. 
> 
> All three systems have an ethernet interface.
> 
> I used a very simple and same configureation file for DHCP server on QNX and Linux.
> 
> It tooks about 1 minute for dhcp client to get an IP address from DHCP server on QNX. But when I get an IP address 
from Linux, it tooks only 1 second.
> 
> I'd like to know why dhcp server is too slow than linux. and how could dhcp server on QNX be more fast?
> 
> I've attached two packet capture files for your information. I used wireshark tools to capture packet on dhcp client.
> 
> If  you have any comment, please let me know.

Try these (x86 and ppc).  We're looking into moving the source
to the foundry.

-seanb

Attachment:

dhcpd 480.56 KB

dhcpd 542.41 KB

Jongpil Won

07/23/2008 3:21 AM

post10874

Re: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi,
I confirmed that two binaries were working well.

Thanks, 
Wayne.

Robert Craig

07/23/2008 2:21 PM

post10904

RE: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi Wayne:
	Glad to hear that this is working for you now.  We'll move the
dhcpd code into the foundry at some point so that this will get picked
up automatically for all people.

	Robert.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jongpil Won [mailto:skypiri@lge.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 3:22 AM
To: general-networking
Subject: Re: DHCP server is too slow.

Hi,
I confirmed that two binaries were working well.

Thanks, 
Wayne.

_______________________________________________
General
http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post10874

Return

The text you entered is not a valid object ID
More Information
Object IDs begin with an object prefix and end with a number. For example, if you enter
artf2345
the application will jump directly to an artifact with the ID artf2345. Some valid object prefixes are:
artf	for an artifact
doc	for a document
page	for a project page
topc	for a discussion topic
wiki	for a wiki page