From owner-freebsd-current Sat Aug 22 07:18:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA05903 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:18:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from freefall.pipeline.ch (freefall.pipeline.ch [195.134.128.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA05894 for ; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andre@pipeline.ch) Received: from pipeline.ch ([195.134.140.6]) by freefall.pipeline.ch (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA335; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 16:15:46 +0200 Message-ID: <35DED2F1.B646CAA3@pipeline.ch> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 16:17:21 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann Organization: Internet Business Solutions Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom CC: Scott Michel , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel PRO/1000 Gigabit Adapter References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Tom wrote: > > 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. I thought it was even more, 20%-30%. What really sucks on ATM is when the link gets saturated, then ATM begins to drop random cells and kills whole IP packets. If that happens you're lost. 1% cell loss on ATM can give 30% packet loss on IP (it depends on traffic pattern, packet size, etc.). > > 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. Even PCI should be enough for two or three cards (155Mbit/s are 19MByte/s and PCI can do 130MByte/s, at least on paper). The problem with APG is that there is only one slot allowed... -- Andre To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message