On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:56:27PM +0100, Konrad Mierendorff wrote: > Carel Fellinger wrote: > > Okee, so there is more overhead. So more bytes have to be transfered. > > But almost doubling it seems a bit overdone, doesn't it. So I'm still > > Check the CPU-usage to get this answered.
Thought I did, but as it turns out I've been looking to the wrong cpu! I should have monitored the 486 ofcourse, and this one uses some 30% of its cpu time:( Add the measured throughput and the 8% cpu time on the server and all time is accounted for. So the remedi is a better NIC, one that is capable of putting the bytes directly in the kernel buffers. Helas, that's momentary out of the question. Besides, I rather spend the bucks on an extra box to serve as a firewall. So my *kids* have to live with slower disk access working on ego, or with slower graphics using ego as an X-terminal. *My* machine is just fine:) Thanks to all for the pointers to make up for my sleep deprived, non-functioning brain again. -- groetjes, carel
