Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:11:08 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au> To: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> Cc: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au>, Alan Edmonds <aedmonds@digitalconvergence.com>, Bill Paul <wpaul@freebsd.org>, Chris Wasser <cwasser@v-wave.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strangeness with 4.0-S Message-ID: <200007041411.AAA18590@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <20000704140131.A1734@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org> from Stefan Esser at "Tue, 04 Jul 2000 14:01:31 %2B0200" References: <200007030749.RAA13446@dungeon.home> <20000704140131.A1734@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 4th July 2000, Stefan Esser wrote: >It is just not necessary to disable the optimization, since it >will cost a few retransmissions (and the driver will know that >the frame was not successfully sent and can retry immediately >with the modified buffer setting). On my systems (multiple affected by this sort of thing) I get a long and annoying pause as the card resets and renegotiates speed and half/full duplex with the switch. It is very noticeable and quite frankly not acceptable. I had to hack out all the clever auto fallback because otherwise I would have thrown my computer out the window. That's why I think that setting the default ever-so-slightly slower, but without big hiccups, is better than the current situation. Of course, add a "maximum performance" switch if you want, but no regular user will find fault with a default of store and forward. Stephen. 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?200007041411.AAA18590>