Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:19:55 -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!? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970619011114.12433E-100000@misery.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <6925.866703623@verdi.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > > > There has been a good deal of debate on whether offloading is really the > > > best idea for network protocol implementations. A lot of people have tried > > > it, and a lot of people have failed. If you look at Van Jacobson't work > > > you'll find him arguing in the opposite direction: A "stupid" (in reality: > > > simple and efficient) controller, and a very efficient protocol stack > > > implementation. > > > > Not really what I was refering to. I was thinking about controllers > > that minimize interupt calls, use DMA, avoid PIO, and align data > > transfered to the host. > > With the possible exception of the data alignment issue, which of these do > you think are *not* used by the 100 Mbps cards supported by FreeBSD? Not "think", but "know". The 3COM Fast Etherlink is only used in polled mode. Even then, the card does seem to be terribly efficient. You should read the driver, and card specs for more details, rather than bother the list. Also, DG has mentioned that the Intel Etherexpress Pro100, is faster than anything using the de driver, because the driver is simpler, due to the hardware design of the Pro100. Anyways, enough on this topic. See the list archives, and hw specs for more details. > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no > > Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970619011114.12433E-100000>