From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Jul 12 15:43:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from dt054n86.san.rr.com (dt054n86.san.rr.com [24.30.152.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2959152A0 for ; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:43:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by dt054n86.san.rr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA08224; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:41:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:41:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug X-Sender: doug@dt054n86.san.rr.com To: Alex Le Heux Cc: kris@airnet.net, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 3C905 versus Intel Etherexpress PRO/100?! In-Reply-To: <199907122230.AAA25713@p.funk.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Alex Le Heux wrote: > We're talking about a 2% difference in cpu utilisation here. Is that > even statistically significant? Yes. I have more than one environment where every cpu cycle is precious, either due to long-term load or due to the need for fast recovery from load bursts. A fundamental design element for a server OS (as opposed to a desktop OS) is to always assume that *every* cpu cycle is valuable. Doug -- On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does. -- Will Rogers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message