From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jun 19 04:31:52 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA23075
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA23070
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA03461;
	Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199706191133.EAA03461@implode.root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Network concurrency problems!? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:25:42 +0200."
             <8181.866715942@verdi.nethelp.no> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:33:46 -0700
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>I can't remember seeing a direct statement that the Pro 100/B driver is
>simpler due to the design of the Pro 100/B. Can anybody help me here?

   I might have said that...I don't recall. In any case, it's part of the
reason; the other part is that I simply was very careful about coding and
spent a great deal of time optimizing the critical paths. There shouldn't
be much difference in total throughput, but the Pro/100B under FreeBSD
consumes much less CPU time compared to the DEC chip cards. My vauge
recollection is that the interrupt time was roughly half. It's entirely
possible that Matt has improved the performance of his driver since I
did the tests, however.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project