| To: | Leonid Grossman <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: The ultimate TOE design |
| From: | Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:09:15 +0200 |
| Cc: | "'David S. Miller'" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Jeff Garzik'" <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paul@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200409241321.i8ODLf39012346@guinness.s2io.com> |
| References: | <20040924130738.GB24093@xi.wantstofly.org> <200409241321.i8ODLf39012346@guinness.s2io.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 06:21:35AM -0700, Leonid Grossman wrote: > > > And at 10GbE, embedded CPUs just don't cut it - it has to be custom > > > ASIC (granted, with some means to simplify debugging and reduce the > > > risk of hw bugs and TCP changes). > > > > Intel's IXP2800 can do 10GbE. > > Hi Lennert, Hello, > I was referring to the server side. > One can certanly build a 10GbE box based on IPX2800 (or some other parts), > but at 17-25W it is not usable in NICs since the entire PCI card budget is > less than that - nothing left for 10GbE PHY, memory, etc. Ah, ok, that makes sense. As someone else also noted, the IXP2800 only has a 64/66 PCI interface anyway, so it wouldn't really be suitable for the task you were referring to. cheers, Lennert |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Improve behaviour of Netlink Sockets, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Fix ipchains/ipfw modules, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: The ultimate TOE design, Leonid Grossman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: The ultimate TOE design, Joel Jaeggli |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |