Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 20:06:18 -0700 From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@westhill.cdrom.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: jkh@freebsd.org, evanc@synapse.net, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD as a router Message-ID: <23382.803876778@westhill.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jun 1995 12:06:31 %2B0930." <199506230236.MAA27725@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199506230236.MAA27725@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>, Michael Smith writes: >Is that a 100bT or 100bVG-AnyLan? There's been lots of rudeness about >the former going around, but some hard experience would be useful >to hear about; particularly for those of us attempting to insert >FreeBieSD into commercial environments. "Oh you know about Unix do you; >what do you think of 100Mb Ethernets?"8) We looked HARD at the situation before we made the choice. So far the only complaint about 100bT that we have had so far is that the damned DOS packet driver abstraction doesn't allow more than a few hundred k/sec through it (even on a pentium), which is kinda useless on a 100bT network. Stick a FreeBSD box on it, and I saw (basically) raw disk throughput (just over 3 mbytes/sec, which is about the speed of the source disk). So far we haven't tested under extreme load yet, but that isn't too far off :-) 100bVG-ANYLAN looked better on paper, but there is a slight lack of support from other people in the industry. HP is about the only company actvely supporting that format (there is another company making PC cards I think, and that's about it). On the other hand, most of the major PC Ethernet card makers have 100bT cards (SMC, 3Com, etc). So you may see 100bVG vanishing, which is why we didn't go with it, despite the known shortcomings of 100bT. Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23382.803876778>