Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 20:10:20 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: davidg@Root.COM, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com Cc: angio@aros.net, hackers@freebsd.org, jc@irbs.com Subject: Re: 100-baseT hub recommendation? Message-ID: <199603010910.UAA04513@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[SMC Etherpower 10/100's vs Intel 100baseT] > There aren't any known bugs in the driver. Performance is about 5% higher >with the Intel card compared to the SMC/DEC. There seems to be a latency problem in the de driver or hardware. The ed driver gives about 3% higher performance than the de driver with my 10Mbps cards: machine a: P133 - ASUS P55TP4XE - Accton EN1203 (DEC 21040) machine b: 486DX2/66 - No-name slow ISA - No-name AE-200JL (NE2000/WD8013EBT clone) machine c: 486DX/33 - No-name slow ISA - No-name AE-200JL (NE2000/WD8013EBT clone) a -> c as seen be c ttcp-r: socket ttcp-r: accept from 192.168.2.1 ttcp-r: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/+0, port=5001 tcp ttcp-r: 167772160 bytes in 154.38 real seconds = 1061.26 KB/sec +++ ttcp-r: 116133 I/O calls, msec/call = 1.36, calls/sec = 752.24 ttcp-r: 1.3user 32.9sys 2:34real 22% 16i+228d 228maxrss 0+2pf 115572+505csw b -> c as seen by c ttcp-r: socket ttcp-r: accept from 192.68.2.2 ttcp-r: buflen=8192, nbuf=2048, align=16384/+0, port=5001 tcp ttcp-r: 167772160 bytes in 149.82 real seconds = 1093.55 KB/sec +++ ttcp-r: 116367 I/O calls, msec/call = 1.32, calls/sec = 776.69 ttcp-r: 1.3user 33.3sys 2:29real 23% 16i+226d 220maxrss 0+2pf 116075+502csw As usual, PIO gives better performance than DMA :-). The busmastering controller has less overhead of course: machine a: 8% Sys + 4% Intr = 12% machine b: 25% Sys + 55% Intr = 80% Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603010910.UAA04513>