In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith wrote:
> > fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model,
> > beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU
> > overhead.
>
> Do you actually have any numbers to quantify this? There's nothing in
> the driver architecture nor
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
>> >> fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model,
>> >> beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU
>> >> overhead.
>> >
>> >Do you actually have any numbers to quan
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
> >> fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model,
> >> beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU
> >> overhead.
> >
> >Do you actually have any numbers to quantify this? There's nothing in
> >the driver a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Smith writes:
>> fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model,
>> beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU
>> overhead.
>
>Do you actually have any numbers to quantify this? There's nothing in
>the driver architecture no
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" writes:
: On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:17:02PM -0800, yramin wrote:
: > fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model, beats
: > the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU overhead.
:
: People say that alot. But does anyon
Mike,
These are my own perosnal findings with machines I've tinkered with.
Nothing scientific about them. I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file
around on a 100Mb switched network between to machines (they were not
identical, but used the same ones for both tests), once with Intel
PRO/100 ad
Mike,
These are my own perosnal findings with machines I've tinkered with.
Nothing scientific about them. I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file
around on a 100Mb switched network between to machines (they were not
identical, but used the same ones for both tests), once with Intel
PRO/100 ad
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 01:04:06PM -0800, yramin wrote:
> I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file around on a 100Mb switched
...
> machines used wu-ftpd and were running FreeBSD 3.2 - R at the time.
Much has changed since 3.2. Does anyone have any real data on a
4.0-CURRENT box within the past 3
Mike,
These are my own perosnal findings with machines I've tinkered with.
Nothing scientific about them. I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file
around on a 100Mb switched network between to machines (they were not
identical, but used the same ones for both tests), once with Intel
PRO/100 ad
< said:
> Do you actually have any numbers to quantify this? There's nothing in
> the driver architecture nor any of my testing that would suggest this is
> actually the case at this point.
As of about four years ago, the relative performance of the network
interfaces was fairly clear:
1) In
> fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model,
> beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU
> overhead.
Do you actually have any numbers to quantify this? There's nothing in
the driver architecture nor any of my testing that would suggest this is
actually
Mike,
These are my own perosnal findings with machines I've tinkered with.
Nothing scientific about them. I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file
around on a 100Mb switched network between to machines (they were not
identical, but used the same ones for both tests), once with Intel
PRO/100 ad
Mike,
These are my own perosnal findings with machines I've tinkered with.
Nothing scientific about them. I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file
around on a 100Mb switched network between to machines (they were not
identical, but used the same ones for both tests), once with Intel
PRO/100 ad
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 12:17:02PM -0800, yramin wrote:
> fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model, beats
> the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU overhead.
People say that alot. But does anyone have any real measurements [taken
in the last three months]?
-
Mike,
These are my own perosnal findings with machines I've tinkered with.
Nothing scientific about them. I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file
around on a 100Mb switched network between to machines (they were not
identical, but used the same ones for both tests), once with Intel
PRO/100 ad
Sorry about that guys and gals. I was using my ISPs webmail system, and each time I
hit sent I got a wonderous Internal Server Error message, and of course I couldn't
tell if it got sent or not :). Delete at your own free will.
Yann
> Why 6 copies of this?
>
> > This message is in MIME for
Mike,
These are my own perosnal findings with machines I've tinkered with.
Nothing scientific about them. I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file
around on a 100Mb switched network between to machines (they were not
identical, but used the same ones for both tests), once with Intel
PRO/100 ad
Mike,
These are my own perosnal findings with machines I've tinkered with.
Nothing scientific about them. I did a few trials FTPing a 600MB file
around on a 100Mb switched network between to machines (they were not
identical, but used the same ones for both tests), once with Intel
PRO/100 ad
In my expierience, these drivers/cards work the best:
ed0: For ISA anything, works like a charm
rl0: The Realtek driver is rather fast, useful with those
$10 PCI NICs
fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model,
beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU
ov
In my expierience, these drivers/cards work the best:
ed0: For ISA anything, works like a charm
rl0: The Realtek driver is rather fast, useful with those
$10 PCI NICs
fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model,
beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU
ov
20 matches
Mail list logo
