On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 11:20:46AM -0500,
gabriel rosenkoetter <gr@eclipsed.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:40:25PM +0900, Toru TAKAMIZU wrote:
> > Seemingly the files are src/sys/dev/ic/rtl*. But I'd not like to
> > change them locally. If the change(s) is reasonable, I hope it will be
> > the default.
> 
> Well. This particular message is just reporting. It shouldn't imply
> that you're losing packets; it's just saying that more memory had to
> be allocated to handle the load. Jason will correct me if I'm wrong,
> but I'm pretty sure this number only goes *up*, so once your
> system's seen regular activity for a few days, you should stop
> getting the noise.

What I meant is, if rtk constantly requires more memory than
allocated by default, the default value should be higher.
If rtk works quite well with the default value under some environments,
ignore what I said.

> > I cannot decide whether this is the reason or not because
> > every time I send or receive date via rtk, this message appears.
> 
> Really? Forever? Always increasing?
> 
> There really ought to be a point after which it doesn't grow any
> more...

You are right! I have to correct or clarify. My macppc is a desktop
that I use only sometimes, so, I mean, "every time I send or receive data
via rtk immediately after booting".

> > > > What is worse, when I tried "-r" and "-w" in order to lower the size,
> > > > random errors occured, e.g. patch didn't work.
> > > That's evil. But it smells like an NFS problem, not a NIC one.
> > > What specific arguments are you giving to -{r,w}?
> > 1024 to both.
> 
> In what way did patch not work?
> 
> Are you sure your clocks are reasonably synchronized between NFS
> server and client?
> 
> What other options are you giving to mount_nfs? (noatime, etc.)

I need some time to investigate these. Tracking down these NFS
errors seems to be hard, bacause (seemingly) they are random.

> > I know that I can get high performance NICs such as ex, fxp at
> > under $12 using net auctions (in Japan), but I want a NIC that
> > works on MacOS 8 as well. Having multiple NICs is a good idea, but
> > I have to buy another HUB.
> 
> I've had pretty good experience with both of those chipsets, and I
> use an ex (and an ep) in a PowerMac 6500 right now. But I don't ever
> use Mac OS, so I don't know how they behave there.
> 
> (I've lost the thread here... couldn't you just use the built-in
> Ethernet chip under Mac OS? Or must it be 100BaseTX?)
> 
> As for hubs... you should be able to get a 10/100 for less than a
> new ethernet card, and a switch for about the same as one. Not
> hardware I'd let near production at work, but it works just fine.

I'm going off-topic too... 

My Mac doesn't have a built-in ethernet bacause it's a StarMax
(one of the Mac clones).

Unfortunately cheap hubs are likely to cause auto-negotiation problem.
In fact, one of my machines does have. (Yes, my hub is a cheap one.)

Best,
toru