Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TX\s+performance\s+of\s+Intel\s+82546\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TX\s+performance\s+of\s+Intel\s+82546\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

1. TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: vda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:14:39 +0200; s, linu; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00539.html (24,166 bytes)
2. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: ric Lemoine <eric.lemoine@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:43 +0100; ngle po; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00540.html (9,684 bytes)
3. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: .lemoine@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Sep 2004 08:18:27 -0400; gle por; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00541.html (9,997 bytes)
4. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: Lemoine <eric.lemoine@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:36:25 +0200; ir tran; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00542.html (9,992 bytes)
5. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: ver <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Sep 2004 09:49:51 -0400; . e1000; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00543.html (10,571 bytes)
6. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: xxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:59:30 +0100; d reall; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00544.html (12,060 bytes)
7. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: er <linux_lover2004@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:02:22 +0200; . e1000; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00545.html (9,799 bytes)
8. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: 15 Sep 2004 10:46:14 -0400; our cho; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00548.html (9,591 bytes)
9. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: .Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:55:03 +0200; s, jama; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00549.html (9,413 bytes)
10. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: al <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:33:55 +0200; . -Andi; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00550.html (10,735 bytes)
11. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: on <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:41:42 +0200; Thanks.; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00553.html (9,752 bytes)
12. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:55:35 +0200; d permi; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00559.html (9,870 bytes)
13. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:15:16 +0200; n 2.6.x; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00563.html (10,845 bytes)
14. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:15:22 -0700; PCI-X,; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg00564.html (9,560 bytes)
15. TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:14:39 +0200; Hi! I'm currently trying to help Robert Olsson improving the performance of the Linux in-kernel packet generator (pktgen.c). At the moment, we seem to be unable to get more than 760kpps from a single; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01995.html (24,181 bytes)
16. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:18:43 +0100; I'm currently trying to help Robert Olsson improving the performance of the Linux in-kernel packet generator (pktgen.c). At the moment, we seem to be unable to get more than 760kpps from a single por; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01996.html (9,604 bytes)
17. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Sep 2004 08:18:27 -0400; Our friends in FreeBSD claim they can do 1Mpps _forwarding_ with e1000 - forget about transmit only ;-> I have been experimenting after SUCON on and off because i found the BSD folks batch their tran; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01997.html (10,071 bytes)
18. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:36:25 +0200; Yes it seems intel adapters work better in BSD as they claim to route 1 Mpps and we cannot even send more ~750 kpps even with feeding the adapter only. :-) Yes data from an Opteron @ 1.6 GHz w. e1000; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01998.html (10,066 bytes)
19. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 15 Sep 2004 09:49:51 -0400; Nice data. BTW, is this per interface? i thought i have seen numbers in the range of 1.3Mpps from you. As far as i could tell they batch transmit (mostly because of the way mbufs are structured reall; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg01999.html (10,689 bytes)
20. Re: TX performance of Intel 82546 (score: 1): Author: P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:59:30 +0100; Yes it seems intel adapters work better in BSD as they claim to route 1 Mpps and we cannot even send more ~750 kpps even with feeding the adapter only. :-) Yes data from an Opteron @ 1.6 GHz w. e1000; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02000.html (11,714 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]