Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:46:30 -0600
From:      Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
To:        Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com>
Cc:        shih@math.jussieu.fr, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Disappointed-new
Message-ID:  <44398EC6.40402@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40604091456gfef47d3q3583d3d1a519d035@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20060407121452.GO1784@math.jussieu.fr>	<6.2.3.4.0.20060408150025.099369a8@64.7.153.2> <5f67a8c40604091456gfef47d3q3583d3d1a519d035@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:

> If you have a dual-em card in this server, you should get better performance
> putting your primary load out the em interface(s).  In general, we've
> benched the em (and to a lesser extent, the fxp) interfaces as performing
> much better than other ethernets (especially bge).  I have a bge on my
> laptop --- and for the most part I don't have problems --- but I wouldn't
> put bge's in my servers and if they come with them on the motherboard, I
> don't use them.

I have the opposite experience.  There are some configurations where bge
has problems, but those are more in the 'it can't get link' category. 
The e1000 hardware has certain limitations that make it scale poorly 
under very high load.

Scott




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44398EC6.40402>