Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 12:15:02 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> Cc: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 100Mbit ethernet card comparision Message-ID: <4.1.19990208120931.04582e90@mail.lariat.org> In-Reply-To: <19990208200523.A9112@cons.org> References: <4.1.19990208115114.0457c800@mail.lariat.org> <19990208145325.A8384@cons.org> <4.1.19990208115114.0457c800@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 08:05 PM 2/8/99 +0100, Martin Cracauer wrote: >How could you come to the conclusion the rl is as good as the de. Read >my mail again, rl under FreeBSD is suicide. I just noted that rl was about as fast as de. Yes, there's more interrupt overhead, but does this qualify as suicide? Most of my FreeBSD machines -- even the 486es -- lope along with such low CPU utilization that they could probably spare the CPU. This doesn't mean, of course, that the rl chip design isn't brain dead; it is. I'd really like to see a network card that was built to do the right things with IPv4 and IPv6 packets -- that is, to make it easy to extract the header. --Brett "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990208120931.04582e90>