RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
- From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:44:35 -0800
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Drew Tomlinson [mailto:drew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:30 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Michael Vince; danial_thom@xxxxxxxxx; freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>Kris Kennaway
>Subject: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
>
>
>On 12/12/2005 8:13 AM Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>>Michael,
>>
>> Fundamentally, here's the problem Danial is claiming exists:
>>
>>it takes a certain amount of time to get the packet clocked in
>>from the network into the ethernet receiver. This is hardware
>>dependent and cannot be changed.
>>
>>It takes a certain amount of time to get the packet out of
>>the hardware in the ethernet card into main ram, this also
>>hardware dependent and cannot be changed. (unless the device
>>driver is terribly inefficient, which we will assume it's not)
>>
>>Once in main ram, the information in the packet has to go through
>>a number of code statements. The more code statements the
>>longer the information in the packet is sitting around in
>>the FreeBSD system's memory.
>>
>>It then takes a certain amount of time to get the information
>>out of main memory into the other sending ethernet nic's buffers,
>>
>>and it takes time to get it out of the sending nic back to the
>>wire.
>>
>>Danial is claiming the slowness is in the main ram section of
>>things, not in the ethernet driver code.
>>
>>polling makes the ethernet driver more efficient at high data
>>rates, but it does nothing for the speed of processing within
>>the TCPIP stack itself. At low data rates polling is less
>>efficient than the interrupt method. And unless the nic driver
>>is terribly inefficient to start with, the time it adds to the
>>packet path in the system is minor compared to the time spent
>>in the TCP/IP stack.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for the explanation. So would polling be beneficial or
>detrimental for a 100 mbps Ethernet card?
Yes, if you were running 100Mbt's of bandwidth through it.
>Not sure if 100 mbps is
>considered "high" or "low" speed. I'm specifically interested in
>NetGear cards using the dc driver or DLink cards using the rl driver.
>
The rl chipset isn't known as a very good chipset. YMMV
Some of the Netgear cards use clone 21143 chipsets which are
extremely inferior to the real thing. In particular if your
Netgear card is using a PNIC chipset it is pretty bad with serious
performance penalty. This is documented in Section 4 of the dc manpage.
People seem to have good results with polling on the fxp cards.
Ted
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
- From: Drew Tomlinson
- Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
- References:
- Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
- From: Drew Tomlinson
- Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
- Prev by Date: Re: Slices
- Next by Date: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
- Previous by thread: RE: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
- Next by thread: Re: Polling For 100 mbps Connections? (Was Re: Freebsd Theme Song)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
