decreasing interrupt CPU load

[Steven Hartland]

I can confirm 82558 using fxp is very good especially with link0.
Using polling an em based card in the same machine ( dual PIII 800Mhz )
will out perform the fxp but only just  16MB/s vs 12MB/s.
Without polling the em is significantly slower than the fxp which appears
to be mainly due to interrupt load.
Note: test results from a single transfer using ftp from a win32 P2.4Ghz
connected directly via Intel(R) PRO/1000.

    Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Oleg Gawriloff" <barzog at telecom.by>

> EA> I've had really great performance with the em NICs, and bad experiences
> EA> with bge's (the hardware is flaky).
> OK, we'll try. Is there any problems with any of supported chipsets in 
> em-driver with polling? There many negative answer about polling support in 
> fxp on 82550, and good answers about 82558 and 82559 with fxp-driver.
> EA> Also - it's possible that your bus is the bottleneck - depending on how
> EA> many NICs you have, the type of bus, and the motherboard.
> Intel SCB2, integrated NIC on PCI 33Mhz bus. We use only one NIC, with five 
> 802.1q vlan sub-interfaces configured. Is there any ideas how can I diagnose 
> bottlenecks on bus?


================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. 

In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137
or return the E.mail to postmaster at multiplay.co.uk.