Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 10:03:11 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: RE: em0, polling performance, P4 2.8ghz FSB 800mhz Message-ID: <16453.62383.59435.72390@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337045D832C@mail.sandvine.com> References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337045D832C@mail.sandvine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Don Bowman writes: > I'm not sure what affect on fxp. fxp is inherently limited > by something internal to it, which prevents achieving > high packet rates. bge is the best chip, but doesn't > have the best bsd support. > Just curious - why is bge the best chip? Is it because it exports a really nice API (separate recv ring for small messages), or is the chip inherently faster, regardless of its API? I'm trying to design a new ethernet API for a firmware-based nic, and I'm trying to convince a colleague that having separate receive rings for small and large frames is a really good thing. Thanks, Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16453.62383.59435.72390>