| To: | ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx, ralph@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xerox@xxxxxxxxxx, sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306100828220.26498@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306092200150.28167@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030610061010.Y36963@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306100828220.26498@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Yes, and it would be nice if you mentioned in your NAPI docs that people should use a tulip, tg3, or e1000 if they want it to work well. In making your sales pitches for NAPI you made it sound like any high-performance card should do fine (i.e. anything but a Realtek). The problems the 3c59x has is nothing to do with NAPI vs. non-NAPI. You're routing rate is limited by how much time a PIO to the PCI device takes :) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 3c59x (was Route cache performance under stress), Bogdan Costescu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Florian Weimer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |