| To: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | Ralph Doncaster <ralph@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:10:32 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | "'netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <3EE54F4D.50909@candelatech.com> |
| References: | <008001c32eda$56760830$4a00000a@badass> <20030609195652.E35696@shell.cyberus.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306092006420.12038@ns.istop.com> <20030609204257.L35799@shell.cyberus.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306092200150.28167@ns.istop.com> <3EE54F4D.50909@candelatech.com> |
| Reply-to: | ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Ben Greear wrote: > One waring about e1000's, make sure you have active airflow across the NICs > if you put two together. Otherwise, buy a dual port NIC...it has a single > chip and you will have less cooling issues. I just took a closer look at my e1000's. They've got a small RC82540EM bga chip on them, manufactured 25th week of '02. If these things do get hot enough to cause problems why wouldn't Intel have them manufactured with heatsinks attached? -Ralph |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ralph Doncaster |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ralph Doncaster |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ralph Doncaster |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ben Greear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |