Hi,

No, I didn't.  Could you point me towards it please?

Thanks!

cheers

bruce

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 08:37:12AM -0500, Michael wrote:
o> -----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-----
> 

-- 
edoneel@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org