Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:25:42 +0200 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: tom@sdf.com Cc: ccsanady@scl.ameslab.gov, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, matt@3am-software.com Subject: Re: Network concurrency problems!? Message-ID: <8181.866715942@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:19:55 -0700 (PDT)" References: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970619011114.12433E-100000@misery.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > With the possible exception of the data alignment issue, which of these do > > you think are *not* used by the 100 Mbps cards supported by FreeBSD? > > Not "think", but "know". The 3COM Fast Etherlink is only used in polled > mode. Even then, the card does seem to be terribly efficient. You should > read the driver, and card specs for more details, rather than bother the > list. You're right - I shouldn't have said "the 100 Mbps cards supported by FreeBSD" - but then I didn't realize that the 3Com card was relevant at all. All the high-speed work I've seen with FreeBSD has used either the Intel Pro 100/B or a DEC 21140 based card. > Also, DG has mentioned that the Intel Etherexpress Pro100, is faster > than anything using the de driver, because the driver is simpler, due to > the hardware design of the Pro100. Yes, the Pro 100/B is measurably faster, and the driver is simpler. The speed difference is not dramatic, though, according to my own measure- ments. I can't remember seeing a direct statement that the Pro 100/B driver is simpler due to the design of the Pro 100/B. Can anybody help me here? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8181.866715942>