Re: Intel 82574L vs 82579LM
Test it. Both should not load CPU a lot. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't. Write here if notice intense interrupts CPU load. My OpenBSD 5.4 amd64 laptop fail to handle 2 MB/s wifi due to some drivers issues (they load CPU up to 100% interrupts). Additional info about interrupts load would be helpful. 24.11.2013, 06:07, Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org: I've got a box with one Intel 82574L based ethernet port and one 82579LM based ethernet port. One will be hooked up to a 50Mbps wan link, the other trunked at gigabit speed to a cisco switch (both routing the wan link, routing some internal vlans, and providing some services). Both the 82574L and 82579LM work fine, but I was wondering if one was better than the other as far as performance or cpu utilization, so I could make that one the internal link and the other the wan link, otherwise I guess I'll just hook them up whichever way makes the cables shorter ;). Thanks...
Re: Intel 82574L vs 82579LM
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 04:30:36PM +0400, Alexander Pakhomov wrote: Both should not load CPU a lot. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't. Write here if notice intense interrupts CPU load. My OpenBSD 5.4 amd64 laptop fail to handle 2 MB/s wifi due to some drivers issues (they load CPU up to 100% interrupts). Additional info about interrupts load would be helpful. I didn't find anything really conclusive. Evidentally the main difference (http://supermicro.biz/support/faqs/faq.cfm?faq=11847) is that the 82574L is a fully separate ethernet interface connected over pcie, whereas the 82579LM is just a PHY that connects to the chipset controller. I found a couple anecdotal accounts that the 82579LM works better (such as http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5151718781), but that's under windows, and might just be driver issues. I think I'm just going to set up the 82579LM for the high load initially and see what happens; it will be easy enough to switch them around if I want to try the other way later.
Re: Intel 82574L vs 82579LM
Paul B. Henson [hen...@acm.org] wrote: I didn't find anything really conclusive. Evidentally the main difference (http://supermicro.biz/support/faqs/faq.cfm?faq=11847) is that the 82574L is a fully separate ethernet interface connected over pcie, whereas the 82579LM is just a PHY that connects to the chipset controller. I found a couple anecdotal accounts that the 82579LM works better (such as http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5151718781), but that's under windows, and might just be driver issues. I think I'm just going to set up the 82579LM for the high load initially and see what happens; it will be easy enough to switch them around if I want to try the other way later. are you running 500k pps? probably not. it won't matter worth a damn.
Intel 82574L vs 82579LM
I've got a box with one Intel 82574L based ethernet port and one 82579LM based ethernet port. One will be hooked up to a 50Mbps wan link, the other trunked at gigabit speed to a cisco switch (both routing the wan link, routing some internal vlans, and providing some services). Both the 82574L and 82579LM work fine, but I was wondering if one was better than the other as far as performance or cpu utilization, so I could make that one the internal link and the other the wan link, otherwise I guess I'll just hook them up whichever way makes the cables shorter ;). Thanks...
