Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:23:16 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at> To: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FBSD 1GBit router? Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803021715140.14402@filebunker.xip.at> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803021636090.14402@filebunker.xip.at> References: <644693.83415.qm@web63910.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803021636090.14402@filebunker.xip.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dear Barney, >> PCIe cards are 1x because the chips are all wired for >> 1x. Intel has a marketing plan. Its not to use low-end >> chips for high-end operations. Intel is just going to >> cannibalized their own business by putting out higher >> performance low-end chips. > > really? > the 1 port server chip use only 1 lane > the 2 port server chip use only sorry, forgotten to finish this part: The 1 and 2 port intel server gbit chipset have a 4x lanes pci-e conection. The 1 port card only use 1x lane. The 2 port card use 4x lanes. The 4 port card use 4x lanes. pci-e bus speeds: http://www.s-t-e.de/index.html?http%3A//www.s-t-e.de/content/Articles/Articles_08b.html (sorry, only in german) http://www.s-t-e.de/content/Articles/images/Articles_08/PCIe_EffVSPay_f24_sml.gif there you see the efficency with different payloads. minimal ethernet packet size of 64 byte has a efficency of 0.4 with small packets you will be able to achieve 800mbits, whats not bad. perhaps with the 2 port-cards it would be better, but I think, the system io of the processor will start limiting. Kind regards, Ingo Flaschberger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LFD.1.00.0803021715140.14402>