Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:11:42 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel gigabit driver Message-ID: <20011128201142.A5668@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <20011129020501.55D1C3808@overcee.netplex.com.au> References: <200111290130.fAT1UUO04412@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20011129020501.55D1C3808@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 06:05:01PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > In article <local.mail.freebsd-hackers/200111290042.fAT0gCA06193@mass.dis.org > > you write: > > >> What happend at Intel? Their driver is even released under the > > >> BSD license! (and the Linux one under the GPL) > > > > > >Many Intel software products are released under a BSD-like license. > > > > > >Consider the ACPI CA codebase we use. > > > > > >> > The driver will be committed to -CURRENT first and MFC'ed to > > >> > -STABLE later. > > >> > > >> Really? What about the gx driver? > > > > > >The 'gx' driver was committed so that Jonathan's code would be on > > >record, since he'd spent so much time and effort on it. Testing so > > >far has indicated that the Intel driver is generally superior, but > > > > No, sorry. Testing has shown no such thing; the performance of > > the drivers is equivalent, or even that gx has a slight edge. > > Well, the experience on irc.snoogans.org begs to differ. The Intel driver > sustained much higher rates under attack than what it took to make gx fall > over completely. Really? This is the first I've heard; the feedback I received from ps was that the gx driver was able to sustain a higher load once I fixed an off-by-one error. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011128201142.A5668>