On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
My firewall is continuing to run reliably - of course. I have
noticed that on of the 3com NICs, I have a single RX overrun
reported. Just one - no errors, and no increases in the overrun
number.
:00:0e.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporati
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
My firewall is continuing to run reliably - of course. I have noticed
that on of the 3com NICs, I have a single RX overrun reported. Just one
- no errors, and no increases in the overrun number.
Which 3
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> My firewall is continuing to run reliably - of course. I have noticed
> that on of the 3com NICs, I have a single RX overrun reported. Just one
> - no errors, and no increases in the overrun number.
Which 3com model exactly? (lspci output, please)
Status report:
My firewall is continuing to run reliably - of course. I have noticed
that on of the 3com NICs, I have a single RX overrun reported. Just one
- no errors, and no increases in the overrun number.
I used to also have one RX overrun on the other NIC - but not anymore.
Hmm
Yuri Gorshkov wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Great! So now some people say Realtek sucks, others say it's better.
What's a poor admin to do?
Don't flame, just stick with the 3COM and their 3C905... Works well and
it's robust (although
Le 19 Août 2005 09:17, Yuri Gorshkov a écrit :
> P.S. Realtek relly sucks more than a Microsoft vacuum cleaner ever
> sucked ;-).
Anything would suck more than a MS vacuum cleaner, as a MS vacuum cleaner
would be the one and only thing that doesn't suck :-)
Nicolas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Great! So now some people say Realtek sucks, others say it's better.
> What's a poor admin to do?
>
Don't flame, just stick with the 3COM and their 3C905... Works well and
it's robust (although 3COM had some problems with
ons, 17,.08.2005 kl. 01.53 -0600, skrev Nate Duehr:
> Daniel L. Miller wrote:
>
> > Great! So now some people say Realtek sucks, others say it's better.
> > What's a poor admin to do?
>
> Buy both and test, like any good engineer. ;-)
Realtek -> max 12MB/s
3com -> Max ~50MB/s (Disk don't del
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Great! So now some people say Realtek sucks, others say it's better.
What's a poor admin to do?
Buy both and test, like any good engineer. ;-)
Nate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Thanx - that's a reasonable answer. At the moment then, it sounds like
> the 3Com 3c905 or Intel Pro/100 series should be my preferred sources
> for 10/100 cards - with SMC as a third place contender.
3COM 3C905C or newer. The 3C905B are so-so. A
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 11:48:30AM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Great! So now some people say Realtek sucks, others say it's better. What's a
poor admin to do?
Don't use realtek :-)
Well documented and well supported != good performing.
Some of the best
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 11:48:30AM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Great! So now some people say Realtek sucks, others say it's better. What's
> a
> poor admin to do?
Don't use realtek :-)
Well documented and well supported != good performing.
Some of the best supported hardware in Linux is
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:35:40PM +0200, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> Gnu-Raiz wrote:
> >Cpu nic usage is a little moot, with dual core chips,
> Well, I have seen the following. Pentium-III 1ghz with 3com nic, maxing
> the CPU under heavy network (100mbit) load such as copying stuff over
> samba/nfs.
Sarunas Burdulis wrote:
So is the CPU load caused by the copying program (scp, rsync, samba,
nfs) or by the driver? How should this be determined?
Well, that's hard to say, subjective at least from my perspective, but I
find samba and nfs to be fairly low on CPU as compared to scp.
On that s
Hans du Plooy wrote:
> Gnu-Raiz wrote:
>
>> Cpu nic usage is a little moot, with dual core chips,
>
> Well, I have seen the following. Pentium-III 1ghz with 3com nic, maxing
> the CPU under heavy network (100mbit) load such as copying stuff over
> samba/nfs. AthlonXP 2ghz (2400+) with marvel gi
Gnu-Raiz wrote:
On 01:27, Tue 16 Aug 05, Anders Breindahl wrote:
On Monday 15 August 2005 23:48, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:54:40PM +0200, Jan Schledermann wrote:
A safe bet is a card with a realtek chip. It works well and is not
expensive.
Y
Rogério Brito wrote:
On Aug 16 2005, Hans du Plooy wrote:
I'll add my voice for this, the Realtek chips (at least the 100mbit
ones) are rubbish. They don't perform well, they're incredibly
sensitive to interference, and they have a habit of not lasting long.
In the mean time, Jeff G
Hans du Plooy wrote:
Gnu-Raiz wrote:
Cpu nic usage is a little moot, with dual core chips,
Well, I have seen the following. Pentium-III 1ghz with 3com nic, maxing
the CPU under heavy network (100mbit) load such as copying stuff over
samba/nfs. AthlonXP 2ghz (2400+) with marvel gigabit cont
Gnu-Raiz wrote:
Cpu nic usage is a little moot, with dual core chips,
Well, I have seen the following. Pentium-III 1ghz with 3com nic, maxing
the CPU under heavy network (100mbit) load such as copying stuff over
samba/nfs. AthlonXP 2ghz (2400+) with marvel gigabit controller,
copying files to
On Aug 16 2005, Hans du Plooy wrote:
> I'll add my voice for this, the Realtek chips (at least the 100mbit
> ones) are rubbish. They don't perform well, they're incredibly
> sensitive to interference, and they have a habit of not lasting long.
In the mean time, Jeff Garzik (the maintainer of ma
On 01:27, Tue 16 Aug 05, Anders Breindahl wrote:
> On Monday 15 August 2005 23:48, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:54:40PM +0200, Jan Schledermann wrote:
> > > A safe bet is a card with a realtek chip. It works well and is not
> > > expensive.
> >
> > Yeah. It's safe in th
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Yeah. It's safe in the same way that a Pinto was safe in a rear end
collision. Seriously, Realtek are the *cheapest* and *worst* possible
chips. If you want anything approaching reliable, then don't get them.
If you want something that will not hog your CPU under heav
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Anders Breindahl wrote:
> Please educate me: What exactly determines a NIC's reliability? What defines
> its effectiveness?
use 2 machines for all tests, but use the same nic card in both machines
scp machine1:/opt/test/10MB.tgz machine2:/opt/junk
try the same te
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 04:58:09PM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >Among other things, its load on the CPU when under heavy traffic load.
> >Certain cards implement a minimal hardware set and do most of their
> >processing in the driver software. The size of the buffe
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:27:21AM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
On Monday 15 August 2005 23:48, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:54:40PM +0200, Jan Schledermann wrote:
A safe bet is a card with a realtek chip. It works well and is
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:27:21AM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
> On Monday 15 August 2005 23:48, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:54:40PM +0200, Jan Schledermann wrote:
> > > A safe bet is a card with a realtek chip. It works well and is not
> > > expensive.
> >
> > Yeah.
On Monday 15 August 2005 23:48, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:54:40PM +0200, Jan Schledermann wrote:
> > A safe bet is a card with a realtek chip. It works well and is not
> > expensive.
>
> Yeah. It's safe in the same way that a Pinto was safe in a rear end
> collision.
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:54:40PM +0200, Jan Schledermann wrote:
> A safe bet is a card with a realtek chip. It works well and is not
> expensive.
>
Yeah. It's safe in the same way that a Pinto was safe in a rear end
collision. Seriously, Realtek are the *cheapest* and *worst* possible
chips.
man, 15,.08.2005 kl. 13.39 -0700, skrev Daniel L. Miller:
> Not to start a war, but . . .
>
> What's the definitive, must-have, kick-ass, bestest, baddest network
> card - that has Linux kernel driver support of course.
>
> I'd like an answer for both the 100BaseT and 1000BaseT competitions.
>
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Not to start a war, but . . .
>
> What's the definitive, must-have, kick-ass, bestest, baddest network
> card - that has Linux kernel driver support of course.
>
> I'd like an answer for both the 100BaseT and 1000BaseT competitions.
> I've tried various Google, searches
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> What's the definitive, must-have, kick-ass, bestest, baddest network
> card - that has Linux kernel driver support of course.
Always had good results with the Intel cards, the gigabit versions use
the e1000 driver: normally
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:39:14PM -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Not to start a war, but . . .
>
> What's the definitive, must-have, kick-ass, bestest, baddest network card -
> that has Linux kernel driver support of course.
>
> I'd like an answer for both the 100BaseT and 1000BaseT competiti
Not to start a war, but . . .
What's the definitive, must-have, kick-ass, bestest, baddest network
card - that has Linux kernel driver support of course.
I'd like an answer for both the 100BaseT and 1000BaseT competitions.
I've tried various Google, searches, and haven't gotten a real
comfo
33 matches
Mail list logo
