From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 27 05:05:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA05546 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 05:05:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from freefall.pipeline.ch (freefall.pipeline.ch [195.134.128.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA05531 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 05:05:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andre@pipeline.ch) Received: from pipeline.ch ([195.134.140.2]) by freefall.pipeline.ch (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA93; Sat, 27 Jun 1998 14:04:04 +0200 Message-ID: <3594DFEA.EFA2CC9E@pipeline.ch> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 14:04:58 +0200 From: "IBS / Andre Oppermann" Organization: Internet Business Solutions Ltd. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Dillon CC: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Will 8 Intel EtherExpress PRO 10/100's be a problem? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chris Dillon wrote: -snip- > As for the "main PCI bus" being the bottleneck, I'm really hoping they > used three host-to-PCI bridges, and not a single host-to-PCI bridge and > two PCI-to-PCI bridges. Even if not, I could push about 100MB/sec across > the bus (assuming the CPU could push that), and thats more than enough > for me. > > I imagine a Cisco of _equal price_ wouldn't even come close to the > throughput I'm going to do. I could be wrong, of course. Even Cisco uses PCI in their routers... -- Andre To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message