From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Oct 24 13:53:13 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA01258
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 13:53:13 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA01249
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 13:53:02 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id GAA32111; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:52:22 +1000
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 06:52:22 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199510242052.GAA32111@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, dennis@etinc.com
Subject: Re: Async utilization.....
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>>>Figure out the processing requirement for handling one average frame size of 
>>> bytes with a 16450 with 8-bit I/O cycles and loads of interrupts, add 20%
>>>and compare 

>> [finally enough data to overwhelm Dennis :-)]

>>>it  to a single interrupt and one 16-bit bus transfer per frame. It doesn't
>>>take a rocket scientist 
>>>to know there's a signficant difference in processing requirements.
>>
>>The factor tends to get reduced a lot by non-data i/o's and protocol
>>protocol processing.

>This is way too much to have to figure out.....I was talking much more
>philosophically......

Yes, I usually just count the i/o accesses and interrupts myself.

Bruce