Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:26:41 +0300 From: "Petri Helenius" <pete@he.iki.fi> To: "Don Bowman" <don@sandvine.com> Cc: <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ENOBUFS Message-ID: <04da01c278ca$d29a9c30$3500080a@PHE> References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533701022CE6@mail.sandvine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>The idle time in a bridging application remains more or less >constant for the bge, regardless of load. This stayed at around >9% of my CPU. For the em, the idle time decreased as I increased >the load, to end up using about double the CPU for the same load. >I will post results when I have them done. That would be great, thanks. >>However, if I understand correctly, PCI-X would allow optimizations >>that are not present on the em driver? >I'm not sure what these optimisations would be other than clock >rate which the driver doesn't care about. I understood that there are ways to put more stuff onto a single transfer. Iīm not a PCI expert so I might be just making up things here. >Watch that your GE cards use a 64-bit bus, and stay at at least >66MHz. For PCI-X, a single device can run @ 133, 2 @ 100, more than >2 @ 66MHz. In the supermicro servers I have, one of the 2 slots >is better than the other since its only used by the expansion. Yes, I already got burned using the slot on the same bus than the emīs for 33MHz card. Now the chips should be running 100/64 but I have yet to figure out a way to verify this on a running OS. I have the 1U servers so thatīs why Iīm more biased towards the em, due to the fact that they come on the motherboard. Pete To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?04da01c278ca$d29a9c30$3500080a>