From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 9 22:46:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EA716A400 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:46:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0923A43D46 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 22:46:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k39MkUut026435; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 16:46:30 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <44398EC6.40402@samsco.org> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:46:30 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zaphod Beeblebrox References: <20060407121452.GO1784@math.jussieu.fr> <6.2.3.4.0.20060408150025.099369a8@64.7.153.2> <5f67a8c40604091456gfef47d3q3583d3d1a519d035@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40604091456gfef47d3q3583d3d1a519d035@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: shih@math.jussieu.fr, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Disappointed-new X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:46:32 -0000 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > If you have a dual-em card in this server, you should get better performance > putting your primary load out the em interface(s). In general, we've > benched the em (and to a lesser extent, the fxp) interfaces as performing > much better than other ethernets (especially bge). I have a bge on my > laptop --- and for the most part I don't have problems --- but I wouldn't > put bge's in my servers and if they come with them on the motherboard, I > don't use them. I have the opposite experience. There are some configurations where bge has problems, but those are more in the 'it can't get link' category. The e1000 hardware has certain limitations that make it scale poorly under very high load. Scott