Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:38:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: gkshenaut@ucdavis.edu, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.com Subject: Re: Difference between a 3C589C and a 3C589D Message-ID: <199707251438.IAA24411@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199707250544.PAA20271@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199707241739.KAA12552@myrtle.bogs.org> <199707250544.PAA20271@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I understand that the 3c589's are probably the best cards to get, but ... > > .....(it even says in the release notes that the driver doesn't > > work with the D's). Are you saying that they do work? Don't ignore Mike's advice, but the 3c589D is now supported by 2.2-stable (unfortunately, the fix didn't make it into 2.2.2), and of course - current. Someone supplied the fix for the D model, and they are no fully supported. > I get about twice the throughput that is reported for the '589's using > an Accton EN2216, and (at least around here) they're a much cheaper card. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707251438.IAA24411>