From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Sep 27 9:11:37 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from acl.lanl.gov (acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EBBDB37B618 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:11:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 96475 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 10:11:34 -0600 Received: from snaresland.acl.lanl.gov (128.165.147.113) by acl.lanl.gov with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 10:11:34 -0600 Received: (qmail 27330 invoked by uid 3499); 27 Sep 2001 10:11:33 -0600 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 10:11:33 -0600 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:11:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Ronald G Minnich X-X-Sender: To: Andrew Gallatin Cc: "Louis A. Mamakos" , Subject: Re: TCP&IP cksum offload on FreeBSD 4.2 In-Reply-To: <15283.19536.410864.339942@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > At this level, you're basically screwed. A sofware checksum isn't > even an option on other PCI users, like disk controllers. If you > don't trust your PCI chipset, what do you do about things like that? > > I'm rather curious -- what was the problematic hardware combination? Can't say yet :-( But it is one of the fancy network interfaces that essentially runs an RTOS on the NIC so it can "help you". Actually fancy $5000 network interfaces are in general less reliable than your average garden-variety $2 IDE chip. Partly because they have so much capability. So we don't worry a lot about lossage with IDE. But it's a big problem on expensive, high end, high performance network interfaces. ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message