Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:51:44 +0000 From: Simon Dick <simond@irrelevant.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Thomas Zenker <thz@Lennartz-electronic.de>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TCP stack still hosed? Message-ID: <20011213205144.GA1488@irrelevant.org> In-Reply-To: <200112131852.fBDIqNF70268@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20011213105451.A738@mezcal.tue.le> <200112131102.fBDB2WQ66827@apollo.backplane.com> <20011213185153.A365@mezcal.tue.le> <200112131852.fBDIqNF70268@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 10:52:23AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Very interesting! Well, I'm glad you tracked it down. Hopefully the > USB authors can solve the buffering issues. We don't want to change > the default back to its old lower value because it completely kills > performance over the more common ethernete interfaces. > > You can also try dropping your USB ethernet down from 100BaseT to 10BaseT > (if it happens to be running at 100). Placing a 100BaseT ethernet > on a USB connection has always seemed to be an oxymoron to me. I don't > know why anyone even sells such a product. I've had to get 100Mb USB once in order to plug my laptop into a 100Mb only switch where I worked, that's the only reason I see for them. -- Simon Dick simond@irrelevant.org "Why do I get this urge to go bowling everytime I see Tux?" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011213205144.GA1488>