Subject: Re: mc0 performance
To: Bruce O'Neel <edoneel@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: Michael <macallan18@earthlink.net>
List: port-macppc
Date: 03/21/2005 08:37:12
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

> There was a thread last Aug about mc0 performance
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-macppc/2004/08/26/0010.html
Yes, I remember. The problem seems to consist of at least 3 different 
ones, some of them hardware-related. I for instance never had the bad 
performance on mc0 problem. ( UMAX S900 - someone with an 9500 and an 
identical mc had it )

> Anyway, just for grins, I tried the recommendations about changing
> the driver and all that did was up the packet loss by another 50%
> to 100%, so that wasn't quite the right direction.  Rather than 
> spending
> hours on this though I'll probalbly just end up with a 100baseT PCI
> board.
Did you try Tim's latest patch? I don't know if it ended up in -current 
but he did quite a lot of work on the mc driver. On the other hand a 
cheap tlp or rtk board is most likely less trouble and gives better 
throughput anyway ( although some people seem to have trouble with 
rtk... )

have fun
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iQEVAwUBQj7OCcpnzkX8Yg2nAQKnCQf9FyLnorPyfu6Ul++gya/eSwVyfMjQjMk8
uM7sFmJ0++2xXki3LlF2uzZzEtQwBKw0ZM/rSaGdEBIa0FwbctCNHcYUlync3vAM
KkU6UyWP3DES6D3XJbr0vjwQkqFFqFqhP/lEkHfO9pg8GiDjEbhFuLsfORfhnyD3
hQUvKhEWB5pJzrtxh2ZSGENnlebP3ETX4X9smI0otp4iwH+P3TJnkp0Oy6bpYCvv
v9ArT0epHUwWnU6+U4L9Ot8SpUL4rTvux0Az2EWHQPu7SX4rUKB+orIhXu7wEOPA
Y660V8oSRGL8G/VOt6Ori2njFIuSEPq0dhz8oje6bNUt67ujOqn0IQ==
=HXU5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----