Subject: Re: Re: would my Quad card be broken ?
To: Michael <macallan18@earthlink.net>
From: Joel CARNAT <joel@carnat.net>
List: port-sparc64
Date: 06/18/2005 18:22:36
--Qrgsu6vtpU/OV/zm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 14 2005 - 12:15, Michael wrote:
> Hello,
>=20
> > I was thinking more of a bad interaction between the Simba and the
> > onboard bridge on the qfe (a problem that is perhaps not evident with
> > cards without an onboard bridge). I also have an esiop(4) that gives
> > more than 200K/s in my Ultra 5 :)
>=20
> Ah, so I got you wrong. I don't have any PCI card with a bridge on it so
> I can't try that.  Joel - can you try the card in another box?=20
>=20

 not at home :(
 I have to wait to go back to work (on tuesday) to plug it in another U5 or=
 U10.
 Maybe I can find another such quad card to test in my U5.

> > Joel - what performance do you get from the onboard hme(4)? I upgraded
> > my Ultra 5 to 3.0_BETA last night and got at least 1.5M/s from the
> > onboard hme(4) during the upgrade installation. I'm pretty certain I
> > got similar performance with 2.0 and 2.0.2.
>=20
> Hmm, I got ~5MB/s from mine, then the AIX box on the other end maxed out
> ( no duplex for some weird reason ). The hme would still do a bit more
> I'm sure. ( after all a mere Netra X1 ( USIIe, only 256kB cache ) can
> move ~9MB/s on each of its onboard NICs without breaking into sweat,
> but that was Solaris 8 )
>=20



--=20
,- This mail runs ------.
`--------- NetBSD/i386 -'

--Qrgsu6vtpU/OV/zm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCtEpM0/VH7L7F7Y4RAtZpAJoDkO1EeEE5aMlK04g6uXOM/b6kpgCdF3GH
MymU7FEcZZNZICvmtNXnQNQ=
=GOVQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Qrgsu6vtpU/OV/zm--