Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:03:42 -0700 From: gnn@FreeBSD.org To: Makoto Matsushita <matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/lnc if_lnc.c if_lnc_cbus.c if_lnc_isa.c if_lnc_pci.c if_lncreg.h if_lncvar.h Message-ID: <m2mzdieq6p.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <4468534B.6050607@jp.FreeBSD.org> References: <200605140147.k4E1lqGD083037@repoman.freebsd.org> <4467A5CE.7070900@FreeBSD.org> <4468534B.6050607@jp.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Mon, 15 May 2006 19:09:15 +0900, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > > Does it work on VmWare? > > If my quick test (7-current, build a new kernel without lnc(4), boot -s, > kldload if_le, and dhclient le0) is not wrong, le(4) works fine for me. Yes, and it has better/more regular performance. lnc always had a skip when doing ping for (.5ms vs 1.5ms). The le driver has also been fixed, from what I'm told, to not have the problem of losing a packet to a reset under load. I have nnot tested it under load but I trust the author of le who I've been mailing wiht off list. Part of the motivation for removing lnc was that le could be a replacement, in particular on VMWare. Later, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2mzdieq6p.wl%gnn>