Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:57:47 GMT
From:      jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly)
To:        Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Cc:        Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: 3com 3c509 card 
Message-ID:  <34974fcb.31632460@mail.cetlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <199712160840.TAA01580@word.smith.net.au>
References:  <199712160840.TAA01580@word.smith.net.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:10:50 +1030, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
wrote:

>> I replaced an NE2000 clone with a SMC Ultra 16, thinking shared memory
>> would consume far less CPU than PIO with an NE2000.  But it seems to
>> be about the same.
>
>About half.  Please don't confuse anecdotal evidence with measured 
>results.
>

I tested with an FTP transfer and consumed about 45% CPU in both
cases.  

I wonder if I'm doing something wrong.  I have the SMC card set to use
zero wait state and my kernel recognizes the memory on the card.  I
don't know what else I can do to improve it.

John






Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34974fcb.31632460>