From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 16 11:34:35 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 E135E1522C for ; Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:34:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 40064 invoked by uid 1001); 16 Oct 1999 18:34:28 +0000 (GMT) To: griffin@blackprojects.org Cc: mike@smith.net.au, 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 13:25:23 -0500" References: <199910161325230440.0DE208AE@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 20:34:28 +0200 Message-ID: <40062.940098868@verdi.nethelp.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Of course its a switched network with full duplex operation. But now > that the general answer is that it is not a limitation of the nic card > I am going to look elsewhere. I was not to sure if it was actually a > limit myself, its just that I observed it on two different machines. > They however were not huge powerhouses, one was a p2-450, and one was a > dual p2 333. Both running real new versions of 3.3-stable. FWIW, FreeBSD 3.x with an Intel Pro 100B/100+ card can saturate a 100 Mbps Ethernet with something like a P-166. This is with maximum sized frames, running ttcp or Netperf. You *don't* need a huge powerhouse with FreeBSD :-) 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