Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:36:10 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org> Cc: Thomas Stromberg <tstromberg@rtci.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Suggestions for Gigabit cards for -CURRENT Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10002031134340.64395-100000@semuta.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <20000203122953.A53875@panzer.kdm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 11:23:45 -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > > I think the memory would come in handy on a heavily loaded system, since > > > you would gain a little extra time in case you were a little late servicing > > > interrupts. i.e. it would smooth out the bumps a little bit. > > > > Yes, but that's what having 8192 2KByte descriptors handy is for... (that's > > 16MB of buffering). > > Are those all in card memory, or in host memory? What happens when you've > got some other traffic on the PCI bus, and the card gets a little behind > in DMAing its data into host memory? They're in host memory, and that's why I said "performance is contingent on PCI bus implementation". I think that 64K of FIFO is adequate flow control for PCI traffic avoidance. > > > If your PCI implementation won't keep up with gigabit speeds, you'll just > > > go slower. :) Most newer systems (e.g. 440BX) shouldn't have any trouble > > > doing a reasonable amount of speed over gigabit ethernet, though. > > > > Typically I don't see higher than 60 or 70MB/s real throughput on most > > systems. > > I've seen 100MB/sec on Pentium II 450's (440BX), and 90MB/sec on Pentium II > 350's (440BX). Aw, it just means your employers buy you up to date systems....unlike po' lil' me... :-( To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10002031134340.64395-100000>