On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:56:41PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Dan Mann wrote:
> > I was just wondering if anybody had an idea which nic card might be a better
> > choice for me; I have a pci 3c590 and a pci smc that uses the tulip driver.
> > I don't have
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:09:52PM +0900, root wrote:
> Basically, it appears that Don Becker praised the Tulip chipset the most.
> How much important is "zero copy TX and hardware checksumming"?
Zero copy TX is not that important yet except if you use samba or Tux or
proftpd or anything else
Andi Kleen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
>
>On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Dan Mann wrote:
>> I was just wondering if anybody had an idea which nic card might be a better
>> choice for me; I have a pci 3c590 and a pci smc that uses the tulip driver.
>> I don't have the card number for
Andi Kleen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Dan Mann wrote:
I was just wondering if anybody had an idea which nic card might be a better
choice for me; I have a pci 3c590 and a pci smc that uses the tulip driver.
I don't have the card number for the smc
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:09:52PM +0900, root wrote:
Basically, it appears that Don Becker praised the Tulip chipset the most.
How much important is zero copy TX and hardware checksumming?
Zero copy TX is not that important yet except if you use samba or Tux or
proftpd or anything else that
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:56:41PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Dan Mann wrote:
I was just wondering if anybody had an idea which nic card might be a better
choice for me; I have a pci 3c590 and a pci smc that uses the tulip driver.
I don't have the
"Dan Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: 3c590 vs. tulip
>
> > faster machine it is much slower. Images take at least .5 to 1 second
to
> > load when they are stored locally. But over the network, with 2.4
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Dan Mann wrote:
> The server has lots (ok, about 20,000 not counting the os itself) of medium
> sized files on it, ranging in size from 60k to 40MB. When I run gqview
> (image viewing program) on the client and point to a local directory that is
>
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Dan Mann wrote:
> I was just wondering if anybody had an idea which nic card might be a better
> choice for me; I have a pci 3c590 and a pci smc that uses the tulip driver.
> I don't have the card number for the smc with me handy, however I know both
>
I was just wondering if anybody had an idea which nic card might be a better
choice for me; I have a pci 3c590 and a pci smc that uses the tulip driver.
I don't have the card number for the smc with me handy, however I know both
cards were manufactured in 1995. Is either card/driver a better
I was just wondering if anybody had an idea which nic card might be a better
choice for me; I have a pci 3c590 and a pci smc that uses the tulip driver.
I don't have the card number for the smc with me handy, however I know both
cards were manufactured in 1995. Is either card/driver a better
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Dan Mann wrote:
I was just wondering if anybody had an idea which nic card might be a better
choice for me; I have a pci 3c590 and a pci smc that uses the tulip driver.
I don't have the card number for the smc with me handy, however I know both
cards
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:27:29AM -0400, Dan Mann wrote:
The server has lots (ok, about 20,000 not counting the os itself) of medium
sized files on it, ranging in size from 60k to 40MB. When I run gqview
(image viewing program) on the client and point to a local directory that is
mapped to
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: 3c590 vs. tulip
faster machine it is much slower. Images take at least .5 to 1 second
to
load when they are stored locally. But over the network, with 2.4.4 and
samba 2.2, It's as if the server knows what I'm going to ask
14 matches
Mail list logo
