From owner-freebsd-current Fri Aug 21 20:48:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19118 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:48:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from pop.uniserve.com (pop.uniserve.com [204.244.156.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA19101 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:48:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca [204.244.186.218] by pop.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #4) id 0zA4eZ-0003tc-00; Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:47:47 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:47:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: Scott Michel cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel PRO/1000 Gigabit Adapter In-Reply-To: <199808220111.SAA23303@mordred.cs.ucla.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Scott Michel wrote: > [slightly off topic] > > Ewwwwwwwww! Friends never let friends build networks with ATM unless > absolutely necessary and even then ... It'd be like perpetrating an > MS Operating system on someone. If the network can't support mcast > naturally, should we really be using it? More important to me, is the ATM overhead of 10 to 15%. On a 155mbs OC3 link, 10 to 20mbs is wasted! You can justify ATM overhead for mixed applications, but if you just want to push IP traffic around, you'd better off using clear channel routed links. > The good news is that ATM is being relegated to the dust heap of > history now that PPP/Packet over Sonet is operational. All we need > now is operational PCI bus cards. Yep. I wonder if AGP slots can be used for non-video applications? AGP has about 4 times the bandwidth of PCI. Of course, you can only have on such adapter. Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message