--- Quote Start ---
Is Interniche so bad idea ? My idea was to buy it when the lwIP would not be an option (due to performance).
--- Quote End ---
The opposite is true - you will switch back to lwIP if you try InterNiche because it is slower. It is also less robust - I can easily lock it up where I can't lock up lwIP doing the same test.
--- Quote Start ---
I wonder how you can achieve this :) maybe i am doing something wrong, probably it is the timers problem
--- Quote End ---
I couldn't do this at first, although for my first year with lwIP it was on a 533MHz PowerPC embedded system and it could do the full link speed with TCP. I didn't hit performance problems until the NIOS II. I needed 240Mpbs with TCP and was unable to achieve that but with UDP I could do 800Mpbs. But along the way we added TCP/UDP checksumming in hardware. That would have helped TCP but I knew it wouldn't be enough still. I spent 2 months optimizing lwIP - the drivers (SGDMA, TSE and PHY are mostly rewritten and memcpy is my own in assembly language). Plus a lot of experimenting. That's where the aforementioned list came from.
--- Quote Start ---
(i'm using the implementation from your example for lwIP 1.3) , i should have a look at the timers implementation introduced in lwIP 1.4
--- Quote End ---
I don't use them - I use something similar to this example but used with an OS (but I use NO_SYS=1).
--- Quote Start ---
Me too, no OS so RAW API used
--- Quote End ---
I use a cooperative OS (written myself) - you almost have to use an OS to keep TCP/IP happy in the background while having your application run in the foreground. My system is event and ISR driven so TCP/IP gets all the CPU time outside of events and interrupts.
--- Quote Start ---
I'm already using lwIP 1.4 , could please point me to the differences in the example between lwIP versions ?
--- Quote End ---
That's good. You have to optimize until you see speeds you can live with.
Bill
Honored Contributor
