From owner-freebsd-hardware Fri Aug 23 14:25:18 1996 Return-Path: owner-hardware Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA14869 for hardware-outgoing; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE [134.95.212.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA14864 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x14.mi.uni-koeln.de (annexr3-6.slip.Uni-Koeln.DE) by FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE with SMTP id AA08207 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 23 Aug 1996 23:22:16 +0200 Received: (from se@localhost) by x14.mi.uni-koeln.de (8.7.5/8.6.9) id WAA22814; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:24:26 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 22:24:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199608232024.WAA22814@x14.mi.uni-koeln.de> From: Stefan Esser To: Michael Smith Cc: rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com (Rodney W. Grimes), pjchilds@imforei.apana.org.au, se@zpr.uni-koeln.de, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ASUS SC200 SCSI card? In-Reply-To: <199608222359.JAA17181@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199608222347.QAA13093@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> <199608222359.JAA17181@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Sender: owner-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Michael Smith writes: > Rodney W. Grimes stands accused of saying: > > > 2. PCI latency was set to 80... Michael Smith suggested it be lower than > > > 32 to i've moved it to 20. > > > > Set it to exactly 32, no more, no less. ASUS and others have done > > 100's of hours of testing and this was found to be the best setting. > > Even with two 810's coming up for an opcode every us? I'd have > thought you'd want to allow for (max latency + one opcode fetch) < 1us > so that the second one didn't starve... This isn't how the latency timer works ... The latency timer prevents a device with a large internal buffer from sending long bursts, which else might cause overruns in receive buffers of other devices. The NCR53c810 got only a small FIFO anyway. It will give up the PCI bus so fast that even the fastest latency timer setting (the lowest value) has no effect at all. But Rod is of course right: The default of 32 should be used except if you have a very controlled environment that has only a few PCI bus-masters with extremely high data rates. In such a case a higher latency timer value might allow for longer bursts and a higher sustained PCI data rate. But you can't use a device that is unable to stop its data source and that does not have a large FIFO in such a case. (Ie. a SCSI chip could just stop the sending device and thus avoid a buffer overflow, while an Ethernet chip most probably can't :) Regards, STefan