From owner-freebsd-hardware Fri May 5 21:35: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087FA37B5E2 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 21:35:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA23578 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 22:34:54 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000505222842.043b5e00@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 22:34:49 -0600 To: hardware@freebsd.org From: Brett Glass Subject: Why would fxp be slower than ed? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I've recently upgraded a 486DX/100 host (yes, it's not very powerful, but it has sufficient CPU for what it does) from an ISA-based NE2000 clone to an Intel PCI NIC. (It uses a '557 chip.) The machine was upgraded from 16K to 24K of RAM at the same time and kernel memory was expanded (MAXUSERS went from 64 to 96). Since the Intel card and its driver are said to be quite efficient, and there were more mbufs to go around, I was amazed to find out that a backup of the machine (it's done by piping a dump to gzip to FTP over a secure connection) slowed down to nearly half the speed it ran at before. Any ideas regarding why this might happen? The machine is running 2.2.8 with fixes and patches, about to upgrade to 3.5 if it proves to be as stable as we hope. --Brett "You're not just e-mailing her, you're e-mailing anyone she's ever e-mailed." -- Dayton Daily News Cartoonist Mike Peters on the "Melissa virus" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message