From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 15 0: 2:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A386214D3E for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:02:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id AAA96407; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:02:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 00:02:01 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199903150802.AAA96407@apollo.backplane.com> To: Amancio Hasty Cc: Wes Peters , Cory Kempf , Bill Paul , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Gigabit ethernet -- what am I doing wrong? References: <199903142046.MAA87857@rah.star-gate.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :Not sure what the problem here is . Can a network chipset designer create a :chipset :with a concept of a program store? The answer is yes , if they chose to :implement :a sloppy design thats a different issue. : : Amancio You'd have to stuff wayyyy too much memory on the network card to make it useful that way, and the increased performance would only be helpful to a very small percentage of the market verses using the computer's main memory for store. It just isn't cost effective for a network card for the target audience. If the card were made for a high-end router, it would be a different story. But if you are talking PC architecture, you aren't talking high-end router. If performance is a requirement, it's cheaper to use a motherboard that has better main memory performance and perhaps even runs multiple PCI busses or a 64 bit wide PCI bus ( verses the 32 bit wide PCI that most people are used to ). You are more likely to see this then you are to see a network card with a lot of on-card memory. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message