From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 18 22:32:37 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from opus.cts.cwu.edu (opus.cts.cwu.edu [198.104.92.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991D311579 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:32:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from skynyrd@opus.cts.cwu.edu) Received: from localhost (skynyrd@localhost) by opus.cts.cwu.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA20324; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:32:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:32:32 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Timmons To: Jonathan Lemon Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ethernet interrupt overhead In-Reply-To: <19990218221154.34584@right.PCS> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Some time ago when the fxp driver came on the scene we replaced a bunch of de driver cards with fxp ones and the percentage of time spent processing interrupts dropped from about 4% to about .9% on average. The cards are cheap now so you might as well grab one and try it! -c On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > I'm seeing (as reported via systat) that the machine is spending > about 30% of it's time handling interrupts. The ethernet card is > generating just under 10,000 interrupts per second. > > This seems to translate into roughly 9,000 cycles/packet, which > seems rather high to me. Is this reasonable, or do I just have > lousy ethernet cards? Would the EtherExpress (fxp0 driver) perform > better under this load? > -- > Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message