From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 28 00:11:02 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F33116A420 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:11:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.185]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509EE13C45B for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:11:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so2218529rvb for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:10:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ftZoH4rlDWP9zO9IFc3T0ojH8sTnJgE+A3mqd9+YXEk=; b=q5Gf7OgfQWR2VkzqPg46YzZzhl/iLMs/W6iGx6Oki/ELAJXGax6riY+q3AysO6XDZFAolPBZ2ZqhqVx98B/ajzJFPmPxUShCp5sc2VSoyFFGLJg1gnt6jzQj7al0Ngx1TntIOy2OhyyfJVNO54uKOhV1DPUZurt6jXoOviXXlT4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=ez3LZnagpkQbEqli6UjjPd6WQTccpOGiKXo7BAHCn7D6eco+2EMIRfBRuwwjsGxllEA5fg+SXnhsru55kNokk7r5IlHh7qokObiOvo58taD9qQSa0ML3rTvi61keYS0h1lNu+wlQ//xvs3WhGvHQXoyYnBed7moUsN2rEewdVL4= Received: by 10.114.157.1 with SMTP id f1mr3223566wae.1190938237545; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m24sm4431239waf.2007.09.27.17.10.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l8S06vDL007261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:06:57 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l8S06utB007260; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:06:56 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:06:56 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: Chris Message-ID: <20070928000656.GA7119@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <3aaaa3a0709231657r3264c873ife71800731608b03@mail.gmail.com> <20070924020116.GA36909@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <3aaaa3a0709240844j2603a050nd09bb5482a0f3c21@mail.gmail.com> <20070927065155.GE3692@cdnetworks.co.kr> <3aaaa3a0709271030k24892099ra3409ce6f5f7020f@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a0709271030k24892099ra3409ce6f5f7020f@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: FreeBSD Stable , freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nfe driver 6.2 stable X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:11:02 -0000 On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:30:20PM +0100, Chris wrote: > On 27/09/2007, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 04:44:09PM +0100, Chris wrote: [...] > > > > > The card is more stable when using nve driver no crashes still but the > > > performance is around the same maxing out at around 200mbit. I was > > > expecting nearer 400-500mbit. > > > > > > e1000phy0: on miibus0 > > > > > > > There had been issues nfe(4) with 88E1116/88E1149 PHYs but your issue > > seems to be different one. How about manually set media configuration? > > For example, "ifconfig nfe0 media 1000baseTX mediaopt full-duplex" > > [...] > > I typod I meant to say nve was unstable and nfe has been rock solid so > great work with the driver. I enabled mpsafe now and still no > problems and its gave me a little more performance as well, a shame my > nic has no hardware features (unusual for a gigabit nic) but overall > glad its at least stable. > How did you check network performance? Maxing out at around 200Mbps seems weird. Personally, I had never seen GigE hardwares that saturate at 200Mbps. One of causes I can think of is speed/duplex mismatches with link partner. Manually setting speed/duplex might fix your performance issue, I guess. -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon