On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 06:57:32PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > de4x5 is stable, but tends to perform badly under load, mostly because > > it doesn't use rx_copybreak and overflows standard socket buffers with its > > always MTU sized skbuffs. > > One of the reasons that de4x5 isn't gone already is that I get reports > that de4x5 performs better than the tulip driver for their card. I have the same reports from various sources (but then they complain about the socket buffer issue ;) I think it would be best to just keep it as it is with minimal mainteance, even in 2.5. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as ... kuznet
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... kuznet
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... kuznet
- tulip vs. de4x5 (was Re: Linux 2.4 S... Jim Schutt
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated... Bill Wendling
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... Andi Kleen
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... Andi Kleen
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... David C. Davies
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... David C. Davies
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Up... Alan Cox
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2.4.0-test... David Ford
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2.4.0... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2... David Ford
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as ... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2... Alan Cox
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as ... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as ... David Ford