Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 18:51:37 +0200 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu Cc: dennis.glatting@software-munitions.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anybody actually using gigabit ethernet? Message-ID: <8447.926441497@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 May 1999 12:38:23 -0400 (EDT)" References: <199905111638.MAA25952@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You didn't read what I said. I don't have a gigabit ethernet switch. > I only have cards. Therefore the *only* way I can test the operation > of the driver and adapters is to connect two machines with gigabit > cards back to back with a patch cable. This automatically implies 'using > gb end-to-end.' > > As for corruption due to TCP sequence number wrapping, I don't know > what to tell you. I never noticed such behavior in my tests, but that's > why I'm asking for feedback from other people. The obvious answer to the TCP sequence number problem is RFC 1323. I assume anybody who wants to use gigabit Ethernet over significant distances *will* use RFC 1323, if they are interested in any performance at all. Otherwise the 64 kbyte window will kill you. As for me, I have tested the driver with Netgear cards. Works great here, I got 470 Mbps (effective application to application) with ttcp, running back to back on a PII-350 and a Celeron 300A (overclocked to 337, thus PCI bus clocked at 37.5 Mhz). The limit in my case is clearly the CPU. However I did *not* see any better performance when I turned on jumbo frames. Next I'll put one card in an old PPro-200 and see what I can get from that. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8447.926441497>