On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 08:46:40AM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>That theory is not correct, I have seen multiple Alpha machines reporting
>buffer underruns as well. No ATA disk in sight there..
I get the same thing on AS4000/AS4100 machines running Tru64. I'm
inclined to believe it's a design fla
...
> >As far as I can tell the fxp driver doesn't even use the tx_fifo in the
> >825xxx chips :-)
>
>The 82557-9 have a 2KB internal buffer for transmits. They don't start
> transmitting until a programmed threshold is reached - this is to insure
> that PCI bus latency doesn't result in the
>> <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > Ohh... and a finally note, DEC blew the chip design by only including
>> > a 160byte threshold point given that PCI 2.0 spec says it should have
>> > been 500bytes!!
>>
>> It wouldn't be the first thing DEC had screwed up in the design of
>> these NICs. On
> <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Ohh... and a finally note, DEC blew the chip design by only including
> > a 160byte threshold point given that PCI 2.0 spec says it should have
> > been 500bytes!!
>
> It wouldn't be the first thing DEC had screwed up in the design of
> these NICs. On the othe
> <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Ohh... and a finally note, DEC blew the chip design by only including
> > a 160byte threshold point given that PCI 2.0 spec says it should have
> > been 500bytes!!
>
> It wouldn't be the first thing DEC had screwed up in the design of
> these NICs. On the othe
< said:
> Ohh... and a finally note, DEC blew the chip design by only including
> a 160byte threshold point given that PCI 2.0 spec says it should have
> been 500bytes!!
It wouldn't be the first thing DEC had screwed up in the design of
these NICs. On the other hand, Intel has owned the silicon
> On Friday, 14th July 2000, "Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
>
> >> I suspect an interaction between the ATA driver and VIA chipsets,
> >> because other than the network, that's all that is operating when I see
> >> the underruns. And my Celeron with a ZX chipset is immune.
> >
> >I've seen them on j
On Friday, 14th July 2000, "Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
>> I suspect an interaction between the ATA driver and VIA chipsets,
>> because other than the network, that's all that is operating when I see
>> the underruns. And my Celeron with a ZX chipset is immune.
>
>I've seen them on just about ever
[cc: trimmed to -current]
> >>>Does anyone here actually measure these latencies? I know for a fact
> >>>that nothing I've ever done would or could be affected by extra latencies
> >>>that are as small as the ones we are discussing. Does anybody at all
> >>>depend on the start-transmitting-befo
On Friday, 14th July 2000, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>> That theory is not correct, I have seen multiple Alpha machines reporting
>> buffer underruns as well. No ATA disk in sight there..
>
>This has been a reported feature of the tulip chip and alphas (de driver
>usually) forever forever forever.
> That theory is not correct, I have seen multiple Alpha machines reporting
> buffer underruns as well. No ATA disk in sight there..
This has been a reported feature of the tulip chip and alphas (de driver
usually) forever forever forever.
It's not a bug, per se, IMO.
To Unsubscribe: send
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 12:51:14PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
> On Thursday, 13th July 2000, "Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
> >>
> >>>Does anyone here actually measure these latencies? I know for a fact
> >>>that nothing I've ever done would or could
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
> place. I suspect an interaction between the ATA driver and VIA chipsets,
> because other than the network, that's all that is operating when I see
> the underruns. And my Celeron with a ZX chipset is immune.
I've noticed this on a VIA chipset machine
On Thursday, 13th July 2000, "Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>>
>>>Does anyone here actually measure these latencies? I know for a fact
>>>that nothing I've ever done would or could be affected by extra latencies
>>>that are as small as the ones we are disc
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>
> >>Guess it will show up if you measure latencies (or your application is
> >>doing lots of RPCs). But as soon as there is a cheap 100baseT switch in
> >>the path to the destination, there will be store-and-forward at work ;-)
> >
> >Does anyone here
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>>Guess it will show up if you measure latencies (or your application is
>>doing lots of RPCs). But as soon as there is a cheap 100baseT switch in
>>the path to the destination, there will be store-and-forward at work ;-)
>
>Does anyone here actually meas
On Monday, 10th July 2000, Stefan Esser wrote:
>On 2000-07-09 20:52 +1000, Stephen McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 8th July 2000, Stefan Esser wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, there are renegotiations after each overrun ???
>> The code at the point that an underrun is detected is:
>>
>> p
17 matches
Mail list logo
