by homeworld.redbacknetworks.com with SMTP; 17 Dec 1998 04:02:18 -0000
	by acheron.middleboro.ma.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) id XAA00612;
	Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:01:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19981216230137.D320@acheron.middleboro.ma.us>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 23:01:37 -0500
From: Mason Loring Bliss <mason@acheron.middleboro.ma.us>
To: "Brian C. Grayson" <bgrayson@marvin.ece.utexas.edu>
Cc: netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Sun jumping on Linux bandwagon
References: <199812121158.DAA11187@cue.bc.ca> <m3lnk9p6fg.fsf@trantor.cosmic.com> <19981216084649.H10788@acheron.middleboro.ma.us> <19981216134847.A12105@marvin.ece.utexas.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <19981216134847.A12105@marvin.ece.utexas.edu>; from Brian C. Grayson on Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 01:48:47PM -0600

On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 01:48:47PM -0600, Brian C. Grayson wrote:

> Are you running on 100Mb Ethernet, by any chance?  And do
> your server Ethernet cards not support DMA?

Um... I *believe* the answer here is "no, yes - sort of." I'm running ten
megabits, but one end is an oldish ISA card which probably isn't doing DMA,
although I don't know for sure. The other end is a PCI card that I *assume*
does DMA.

> The quickie solution is, restrict your wsize to be smaller than an Ethernet
> packet, i.e., use 1024 bytes.

This does, indeed, work around the problem. I'm definitely not running hundred
megabit Ether, though. Again, FWIW, this ended up not being problematic back
when both machines were running 1.3.2. Also, semi-recent experience between
1.3.2/i386 and 1.3.2/mac68k didn't see any problems. The only variable I can
see is software, and the only change has been from 1.3.2 to -current.

As I mentioned in a previous letter to the list, I hope to put together some
details this weekend.

-- 
Mason Loring Bliss..mason@acheron.middleboro.ma.us..acheron.ddns.org/mason/
"In the drowsy dark cave of the mind dreams build their nest with fragments
  dropped from day's caravan."--Rabindranath Tagore..awake ? sleep : dream;