On 5/26/05, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --On 26 May 2005 12:11 +0200, Alexander Hall wrote: > > > Henning Brauer wrote: > >> * Philip Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-20 21:34]: > >>> More Mhz. Not crappy nics, get xl,fxp,dc etc. Or maybe gigabit nics > >>> like em(4). > >> > >> > >> xl is crap. > >> > >> sk is probably the best you can get currently. and they are > >> amazingly cheap. > > > > Can anyone comment on the fxp cards and driver? > > Reliable and not too heavy on the CPU (some chips/revisions have > microcode to do interrupt mitigation in /etc/firmware, grep -3 CPUSAV > /sys/dev/ic/fxp.c for a list). > I was about to say "or in the fxp(4) man page", but then I realized that particular xterm was an ssh session into my NetBSD box, so nevermind, grep away. (As an aside, I greatly appreciate the new ksh in 3.7 supporting bash-style PS1 prompts, like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ ", which makes such confusion a thing of the past.)
At least with 3Com and Intel cards I know I'm getting an xl or fxp card, and don't wonder whether they did like Linksys, DLink, etc., and added a + to the end of the model and used a completely different chipset. Of course, it seems most cheap cards are based on rtl8139 or something similar, and getting something better is hitting the jackpot. I've never encountered an sk card, but that's probably because I haven't gone shopping for gigabit stuff. If they really are that cheap, though, I might just have to start! While it wasn't under OBSD, I've had some bad experiences with early fxp hardware (eeproo 100/B). Don't know if it was the famous "receiver lock-up bug", but I definitely had kernel lock-ups resulting from them. Newer stuff seems to work fine. I've never had any problems with xl-based cards, but I trust Henning knows of what he speaks. I've found they perform decently (better than rl, but that's not saying a lot), but I'm not pushing the limits. I get ~80Mbit throughput shooting files around my LAN (which is not going through pf; my cable modem, which does, is a mere pittance in comparison), and that is "good enough" for me right now. Thanks for the history lesson, Nick. :-) I've never seen a 3C505 or 507-- didn't one of them actually use the same chip (82586) as an Intel NIC? Incidentally, the original 3c509 is a terrible performer (the 3c509b was better). Later NE2000 clones like the AT/LANTIC (DP83905) and RealTek8019 blow the 3c509 out of the water, at least in raw throughput. However, the 3c509 didn't have confusing jumpers or impossible-to-find DOS setup programs, which was a definite plus. I remember when 10Mbit ethernet was all the rage and having it on a PC was a novel idea, the university would only support/troubleshoot dorm connections if you had a 3c509 or SMC 8000 -- you were on your own with your JoeBlow NE2000. Lest that sound too heartless, remember these were the days of Win 3.1, Trumpet Winsock, and DOS packet drivers... (shudder) -Andrew
