Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:53:12 -0700 From: Paul Traina <pst@jnx.com> To: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com> Cc: dg@root.com, cmsedore@mailbox.syr.edu, dennis@etinc.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Router statistics Message-ID: <199704251853.LAA02132@base.jnx.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:19:21 PDT." <199704250519.WAA17037@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
There's a lot less cruft needed to flow packets out a fxp. From: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com> Subject: Re: Router statistics Paul Traina <pst@jnx.com> writes: > > dg@root.com (David Greenman) writes: > > > > Wcarchive does an average of 3500 pps with a peak of around > > 5000 pps. The average data rate is around 20-25Mbps, with the > > machine around 50% idle. This is using the Intel PCI > > Pro/100B...reduce the idle time to about 30% if you're using a > > DEC/de card. > > Yep, the fxp driver is /much/ more efficient than the de > driver. Oh well, fxp's are cheaper too. :-) (Sigh) Is this an attribute of the driver, or of the respective chips? I've sort of settled on 21140-based cards, and I'd hate to buy Intel stuff, as it only encourages them to take over more of the world than they already have. But for some applications, I really need high throughput and efficiency. And the card *is* cheaper. Does there have to be a switch to the fxp driver in my future? All right, I'm done whining for now. Jim Shankland Flying Fox Computer Systems, Inc.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704251853.LAA02132>