From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jun 18 13:51:19 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA10520
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.210.193])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA10510
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1)
	id 0weRe6-00030S-00; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:48:02 -0700
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 13:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@sdf.com>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
cc: ccsanady@scl.ameslab.gov, hackers@freebsd.org, matt@3am-software.com
Subject: Re: Network concurrency problems!?
In-Reply-To: <3666.866665118@verdi.nethelp.no>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970618134115.11180D-100000@misery.sdf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:

..
> Also, if you expect a PPro-200 to saturate 4 100 Mbps links, I think you
> are a wee bit optimistic. (One link, no problem.)

  Why?  As long as the ethernet hw is fast, is should be no problem.  I
can run 2 FW SCSI channels saturated (2 x 20MB/s * 8 = 320mbs), and the
system isn't even working too hard yet.  Certainly, full-duplex
connections double the total possible bandwidth (4 x 100 x 2 = 800mbs),
but most servers are mainly outbound.

  However, I really doubt whether most ethernet adapters offload enough
functions from the main CPU.  The trend is to make very stupid
controllers, which are slaved to the CPU for everything.

> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
> 
> 

Tom