Kurt Wall wrote:
>
> Using recycled bits, hpj said:
>
> [snippety-snip]
>
> % Concluding, 3Com seems to be more successful in marketing skills,
> % then in technical ones (only 8 KB packet-buffer, others have 64 KB)
> % If you need a 100Mb card only, there are (cheaper) alternatives.
>
> Would you suggest some cards that have the larger packet-buffer?
As I don't made any analysis of RAM buffer usage (maybe Don Becker has),
I cannot give you an useful advice. I would state it like this:
As faster as your (operation-)system is, as lesser bufferspace is used.
In life, things are much more complicate (latency time, bus speed, bus
transfer mode, peek load, peek network load, and many factors more)
I thing, todays actual systems are fast enough to work fine with such a
small one. This is quite different to LANCE NIC times with unix on a
16MHz 68000 cpu. There a 64 KB buffer saved some sysadms life...
Gigabit ethernet with big (>4K) packets changes this picture again!
BTW: Did anybody have experience with 4K mtu? (current linux kernel
skbuff limit)
Hans-Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
