From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 17 22:48:31 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA25611
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 17 May 1995 22:48:31 -0700
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA25604
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 17 May 1995 22:48:24 -0700
Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <248>; Wed, 17 May 1995 23:02:53 -0700
Date: 	Wed, 17 May 1995 23:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@haven.uniserve.com>
To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@estienne.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Adaptec 2940? 
In-Reply-To: <199505180419.VAA23995@estienne.cs.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950517225856.9253A-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 17 May 1995, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:

> The drivers are identical, so the interupt time should be the same for 
> driving either card on the same machine.  Your benchmark is not really
> valid since they were run on different motherboards.

  To some extent.  It is instesting that a good EISA system can best a 
poor PCI system.  Woe to those buying cheap PCI motherboards.

Tom