From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 25 03:45:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8828216A41C for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:45:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tom.hurst@clara.net) Received: from spork.qfe3.net (spork.qfe3.net [212.13.207.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611B943D58 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:45:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tom.hurst@clara.net) Received: from [81.104.55.176] (helo=voi.aagh.net) by spork.qfe3.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Dm1bP-0001Us-FD; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 04:45:07 +0100 Received: from freaky by voi.aagh.net with local (Exim 4.51 (FreeBSD)) id 1Dm1bO-000PM4-ST; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 04:45:06 +0100 Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 04:45:06 +0100 From: Thomas Hurst To: Arkadi Shishlov Message-ID: <20050625034506.GA96367@voi.aagh.net> Mail-Followup-To: Arkadi Shishlov , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <000f01c577dd$0b82dad0$fef929d9@multiplay.co.uk> <03bf01c57844$811874a0$fef929d9@multiplay.co.uk> <42BBEE70.1050503@centtech.com> <20050624213926.GA7825@mebius.lv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050624213926.GA7825@mebius.lv> Organization: Not much. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: Thomas Hurst X-RBL-Warning: 81.104.55.176 is in RBL blacklist at dnsbl.sorbs.net Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fibre Gig card recommendations? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:45:10 -0000 * Arkadi Shishlov (arkadi@mebius.lv) wrote: > > I use the em cards (Intel Pro 1000/MT's and the like) in many > > machines here, and they are rock solid. You'll pay a little more > > for them, but there is a reason for it. > > Whats about performance and stability with MTU > 1500? I tried > increasing MTU on my Intel-made servers to speed-up NFS, but both > 5.3 em and 2.x Intel provided drivers get stuck after some time with > interface in OACTIVE state. I've been using MTU=9014 for a while now without problems, aside from the odd glitch with autonegotiation. Switch is an SMC 8505T, using both WinXP and FreeBSD 5 drivers. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst http://hur.st/