Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:43:58 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>, yramin <yramin@redshift.com>, howardl@account.abs.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best NIC for FBSD (was: Buffer Problems and hangs in 4.0-CURRENT..) Message-ID: <200003160043.QAA03579@mass.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:13:55 GMT." <200003152313.aa85970@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <200003152053.MAA01346@mass.cdrom.com>, Mike Smith writes: > >> fxp0: The Intel driver is by far the highest preformance model, > >> beats the 3com (second best) hands down with much lower CPU > >> overhead. > > > >Do you actually have any numbers to quantify this? There's nothing in > >the driver architecture nor any of my testing that would suggest this is > >actually the case at this point. > > The FreeBSD fxp driver does a lot to reduce the number of transmit > interrupts; only 1/120 of transmitted packets result in interrupts. See > the code relating to FXP_CXINT_THRESH. > > Assuming an even balance of transmitted and received packets, this should > reduce the total number of interrupts by nearly 50%. I don't know if > drivers for other cards do (or even can) use this approach. This is why I'm asking for real information here; so far all I'm hearing is folklore. The xl driver, for example, does both transmit and receive interrupt coalescing, which should make it superior again, right? 8( -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003160043.QAA03579>