From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar  3 07:03:17 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9219F16A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  3 Mar 2004 07:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5375B43D54
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  3 Mar 2004 07:03:17 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu)
Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu
	[152.3.145.30])
	by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i23F3GF6029033
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:03:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from gallatin@localhost)
	by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id i23F3BnI080436;
	Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:03:11 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from gallatin)
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16453.62383.59435.72390@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:03:11 -0500 (EST)
To: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>
In-Reply-To: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337045D832C@mail.sandvine.com>
References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337045D832C@mail.sandvine.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: em0, polling performance, P4 2.8ghz FSB 800mhz
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:03:17 -0000


Don Bowman writes:

 > I'm not sure what affect on fxp. fxp is inherently limited
 > by something internal to it, which prevents achieving 
 > high packet rates. bge is the best chip, but doesn't
 > have the best bsd support.
 > 

Just curious - why is bge the best chip?  Is it because
it exports a really nice API (separate recv ring for small messages),
or is the chip inherently faster, regardless of its API?

I'm trying to design a new ethernet API for a firmware-based nic,
and I'm trying to convince a colleague that having separate
receive rings for small and large frames is a really good thing.

Thanks,

Drew