Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:30:58 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: griffin@blackprojects.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Balancing Outgoing traffic over 2 nics, and nic limitations. Message-ID: <199910161830.LAA06781@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 16 Oct 1999 20:34:28 %2B0200." <40062.940098868@verdi.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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 > :-) The issue here isn't big frames though, it's little frames. You don't appear to have noticed that, and it's potentially very relevant. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199910161830.LAA06781>