On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:59:50AM +0200, Marian Durkovic wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> seems we've found the problem. The performance degradation was happening
> it the TX path, due to insufficient setting of TX packet buffer FIFO on the
> chip.
>
> To achieve wirespeed performance, the TX FIFO mu
I'll take a look at it while I'm at BSDCan next week. From your website's
description of the attack, I don't see why FreeBSD would be affected so
greatly... we must be wasting a lot of time traversing linked lists / etc.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
On Mon, 2 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greeti
Hi all,
seems we've found the problem. The performance degradation was happening
it the TX path, due to insufficient setting of TX packet buffer FIFO on the
chip.
To achieve wirespeed performance, the TX FIFO must be large enough to
accomodate 2 jumbo packets (not just 1 as the driver was as
