From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May 19 16:39:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA26228
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 19 May 1997 16:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [195.1.171.130])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA26223
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 19 May 1997 16:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
Received: (qmail 12632 invoked by uid 1001); 19 May 1997 23:39:05 +0000 (GMT)
To: rcarter@consys.com
Cc: hutton@isi.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: throughtput measurements for fast ethernet
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 May 1997 16:23:02 -0700"
References: <3380E0D6.EB2A5EC7@consys.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.28.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 01:39:05 +0200
Message-ID: <12630.864085145@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > I doubt motherboards are the issue here. I've measured 79 Mbps between
> > two P133s (430FX chipset), using SMC (21140 based) cards. This was done
> > more than a year ago, and the results are in the Netperf database. I got
> > the same figures with ttcp.
> 
> Well, it does matter.  These had pipelined burst SRAM, right?  Anything
> with async SRAM will run around 45Mbits/s with 21140 cards.  The
> same CPU with PB-SRAM agrees with what you report.

Good point. Yes, these systems had pipelined burst cache.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no