Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:15:39 -0500 (EST) From: "David E. Cross" <dec@phoenix.its.rpi.edu> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Johan Larsson <gozer@ludd.luth.se>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Rob Nelson <rob@mag-net.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: 3com 3c509 card Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971215221201.13325A-100000@phoenix.its.rpi.edu> In-Reply-To: <199712160227.MAA00551@word.smith.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Mike Smith wrote: > > > > So my suggestion is that you _don't_ ship your computers with 3com cards, > > at least not the 509. > > I'd have to ask why anyone would use a 3c509 when an NE2000 clone is > cheaper, faster and better supported. > > Alternatively, I'd have to wonder why anyone would contemplate shipping > a hardware combination that they haven't tested extensively in-house > first. > Ok... this I take offence at.. I have always had great troubles with the NE2000 cards and compatibles in all areas (from working to performance). I have 2 3c509s in my system, and have only had a problem once (Back with FreeBSD 2.1.5 I think, which got pulled because of the problem). As for performance... I have done cross subnet installs with these cards and got a sustained (on a 1.5 Gigabyte file) transfer of 800 K Bytes per second (between 2 3c509s, across 2 subnets with other computers)... I am *very* pleased with these cards. My understanding of the 'buggy' comment comes from the PNP nature of these cards. -- David Cross ACS Consultant
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971215221201.13325A-100000>