-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "Darren" == Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au> writes:
    Darren> In testing on identical hardware, using an identical test
    Darren> suite, I've observed 100% packet capture with freebsd 5.1
    Darren> but netbsd 1.6zk always returned some packet loss (in this
    Darren> instance, missing 1 packet is as bad as missing 10 or 100 or
    Darren> 1000.)  On this particular piece of hardware, freebsd 5.1 is
    Darren> returning 100% captures at upto 150Mb/s spread over 4 NICs
    Darren> (2*Intel Pro100S, 2*Intel 1000MT.)

  A question - when you say 100% packet capture, you mean that you
caught as many packets as you sent?

  I'm asking if it is that NetBSD is loosing packets, or that FreeBSD is
failing to report them as lost.

  I won't be surprised if FreeBSD is more efficient or more highly tuned
to x86 architecture than NetBSD -- afterall, that's a primary goal of
FreeBSD.

- --
]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@xelerance.com      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBQHQnpoqHRg3pndX9AQExigQApGf+wpr2oHxj63YYKg/6xxia9zooLm6F
yBwROPtjcdHtzvK4zHNdNkWVKqpmQ2KZzHVJ+ngB4P0k5zirFYuKC8udq46fh687
saMwGDqTwKzQvaZH8MMbjcZqhDmnHr0chYthh0LyCn/Kf21gaArp1LUn2IsbSAsn
Nyh/4ncO63U=
=xuvQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----