From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Oct 16  1:10:22 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E6B614F06
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 01:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no)
Received: (qmail 30552 invoked by uid 1001); 16 Oct 1999 08:10:17 +0000 (GMT)
To: griffin@blackprojects.org
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Balancing Outgoing traffic over 2 nics, and nic limitations.
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:51:37 -0500"
References: <199910160251370480.0B9DA297@207.109.8.249>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:10:17 +0200
Message-ID: <30550.940061417@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> This configuration is neccessary because by my estimation I have run
> into a limit on the intel pro 100 netcards of 6,000 packets/second.
> This limit equates to about 30 to 32 megabit/second of web traffic in
> our situation.  I am wondering if anyone else has noticed this limit?

The Pro 100B/Pro 100+ models, using the fxp driver, are fully capable
of saturating a 100 Mbps Ethernet. With maximum sized packets, this
gives you more than 8000 packets per second. I have measured this many
times myself.

Thus I think the limitation you're seeing is not in the Intel Ethernet
cards.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message