From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 16 19:40:33 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA00704 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA00696; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.7.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA08641; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609170240.TAA08641@root.com> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Jeffrey Barber cc: "'freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org'" , "'hackers@FreeBSD.ORG'" Subject: Re: Slow Etherlink In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:00:41 -0800." <01BBA3DF.D5124740@jabpc.rtfm.com> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:40:57 -0700 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >OK, If we can get past all the sarcasim bull shit! I realize that the = >ping I showed for Linux seems to be slower than FreeBSD but the point is = >that I have faster telnet response from Linux than I do FreeBSD. For the = >more serious ppl who want to help. Let me rephrase my question: Why = >would pinging and telneting to FreeBSD be slower than that of a Linux = >box? I'm going to assume that there is a real problem (which can't be infered from the data you provided). One of the common problems with the 3c509 is that it is easy to misconfigure the irq and yet still have the card appear to sort of work. The result is 0-1 _second_ round-trip times. Try pinging another host on your ethernet, and if this is the case, then you have a irq mismatch or conflict. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project