Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-Connect.Net>
To:        Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc:        bmcgover@cisco.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Clists limited to 1024 bytes?
Message-ID:  <XFMail.970628205708.Shimon@i-Connect.Net>
In-Reply-To: <199706281353.XAA30041@godzilla.zeta.org.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

Hi Bruce Evans;  On 28-Jun-97 you wrote: 

...

Thanx for an excellent technical review.  This type of posting is very
useful.

> Anyway, 19200 bps is not a heavy load unless there are a lot of active
> ports.  With 32 active 16550 ports it would be fairly heavy, but still
> gives less than 6% of the throughput of a single 10Mb/s ethernet.

I was thinking more (on a 16550) about what happens at 115,200, 230,400, 
and more.  These are speeds we see already today with ISDN lines.
The option of an external TA (such as a Motorola BitSRFR) is very apealing,
but behavior at these speeds needs careful consideration.

How would you adjust the drivers to acomodate these speeds?

We experienced a lot of complex problems with SCSI transactions until we
bumped the sio interrupt bufferto double its size.  While performance (on 
the sio ports - we use them only for PPP) did not drop visibly, the strange
incidence of dropping biodone() calls virtually stopped.

Simon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.970628205708.Shimon>