From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 3 10: 4:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69B8115453 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 10:04:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 49075 invoked by uid 1001); 3 May 1999 17:04:26 +0000 (GMT) To: mtaylor@cybernet.com Cc: doconnor@gsoft.com.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, shocking@prth.pgs.com Subject: RE: Decent network cards for 100Mbit? From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 May 1999 12:30:27 -0400 (EDT)" References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 19:04:26 +0200 Message-ID: <49073.925751066@verdi.nethelp.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > The Tulip-based cards are flatulent sacks of pus as well. > There are multicast problem with them. I'm sure Bill Paul can give us a > few words about these cards... Well, it also depends on the driver. In a previous job situation, using Linux, we had to ditch several Intel Pro 100B cards and switch to Tulip based cards - because the Linux driver for the Pro 100B couldn't handle the multicast stuff while the Tulip cards worked fine. Myself, I've used both Tulip and Intel cards for FreeBSD. I have a slight preference for the Intel cards these days, but have always had good luck with the Tulip based cards. And of course, if you need something like a 4-port 10/100 card, Tulip is your only choice at the moment. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message