From owner-freebsd-chat Mon May 10 10:50: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E5514BD6 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 10:50:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr07.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA07473; Mon, 10 May 1999 10:49:55 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr07.primenet.com(206.165.6.207) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd007423; Mon May 10 10:49:44 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA03139; Mon, 10 May 1999 10:49:42 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199905101749.KAA03139@usr07.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Ethernet card with TCP stack built in To: freyes@inch.com Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 17:49:42 +0000 (GMT) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199905100325.XAA03729@arutam.inch.com> from "Francisco Reyes" at May 9, 99 11:18:06 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Just saw an interesting link in slashdot about an ethernet card with > built in TCP stack: > http://www.interprophet.com/demo.html > > The makers of the card claim that in a test VS a regular NIC they were > able to push about twice as much data with about 1/9th the utilization > in the CPU. > > Does a regular NIC card takes so many CPU cycles? Only if you don't trust the hardware checksumming, and turn on the software stuff for fear of packet corruption somwhere between layers 2 an 4. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message