From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 30 23:09:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48EB16A4CE for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:09:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF1643D4C for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:09:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from TM4525@aol.com) Received: from TM4525@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id n.42.5c009b97 (3964) for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:09:09 -0400 (EDT) From: TM4525@aol.com Message-ID: <42.5c009b97.2eb57914@aol.com> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:09:08 EDT To: questions@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5114 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 Subject: Re: 7520 Chipset support in 4.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:09:13 -0000 >As in your previous post on the subject, I >find it no where near as slow as you have stated. For one who couldn't >figure out how to compile without the witness options and various other >debug stuff into the kernel and base system, it prolly would be slower. >After I took this stuff out of the build my benches were greatly improved, >but alas, not to 4.10 speeds. ---- The POINT is not how much slower 5.3 is than 4.10 is, its the fact that a MAJOR chipset isnt well supported in what is SUPPOSED to be the mainstream, stable release. I know its difficult for you to stay on point, but at least try to "get" the point before ranting about the subject. Since you just babble about "your tests" but have never shown any results, no one really knows what your tests test, if anything. The only "test" anyone has posted was completely bogus (some nonsense about firing packets through a socket interface), so you just can't say "my tests show" unless you clarify what you have done. When 5.3 is released we can banter about benchmarks, as it seems pointless to do it now since its not done. It may be pointless anyway, since they've pretty much admitted that 5.3 isn't (yet) going to rival the efficiency of 4.x. I can accept that, but if 5.x isnt ready, then important chipsets should be supported in 4.x BEFORE they are supported in 5, not when someone gets around to backporting it.