Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:51:52 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: <danial_thom@yahoo.com>, "Cezar Fistik" <cezar@arax.md>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Re[2]: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd ThemeSong) Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEAIFDAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051213190825.80186.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Danial Thom >Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:08 AM >To: Cezar Fistik; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: Re[2]: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd >ThemeSong) > > > > >--- Cezar Fistik <cezar@arax.md> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Just a remark. I'm using an "Intel PRO/1000 MT >> Dual Port Gigabit Copper >> CAT5 Server PCI express Adapter" in a box >> serving as router. Pumping 150Mbps >> through it with 99% idle CPU and 1% interrupts, >> polling enabled. It's >> a litle bit expensive, but it does its job >> perfectly. >> > >If you read my last post about polling with intel >cards, you're realize just how foolish your >analysis is. > Maybe he tried pumping the 150Mbps with polling turned off and the CPU utilization skyrocketed? Ted
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNEEAIFDAA.tedm>