Does FreeBSD 4.11-STABLE support the 8237R?

[Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC]

On Jun 4, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
>
> How is informing someone that they're wasting
> their money on a MB a waste of time? I'm sure
> you've wasted thousands of your employers dollars
> with your ignorant recommendations, Jerry. I can
> get hours of entertainment just googling you.
>
> Ok, here's a test to illustrate my point. I have
> a server with a big file (352MB). 2 client
> machines running the same version of Freebsd:
>
> 1) AMD 1.8Ghz Opteron - onboard bge controller:
>
> Ftp results: 4MB/s

You have something wrong then.    I have 2 such machines, both with  
the bge on a simple 32bit/33mhz pci bus, not on a 64 bit or a faster  
pci-x bus (Tyan S2850 boards in both, both with Opteron 244  
(1.8ghz)).  They are connected together with a low level (ie, less  
expensive) gigabit switch with standard MTU size

bge1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
         options=1a<TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING>
         inet 192.168.2.129 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.2.255
         ether 00:e0:81:60:0c:f7
         media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX <full-duplex>)
         status: active

bge1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
         options=1a<TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING>
         inet 192.168.2.110 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.2.255
         inet6 fe80::2e0:81ff:fe64:ae9d%bge1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
         inet 192.168.2.111 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.2.111
         inet 192.168.2.112 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.2.112
         inet 192.168.2.113 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.2.113
         inet 192.168.2.114 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.2.114
         ether 00:e0:81:64:ae:9d
         media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX <full-duplex>)
         status: active

I ftp'ed a 3.9GB file between them using simple ftp protocol.

4227530240 bytes sent in 05:06 (13.16 MB/s)

Both have dual bge ethernet ports and this was on the secondary port  
on each, bge1.   The primary port, bge0, on each is hooked to a  
100BaseT switch and one server (origination) was serving a bunch of  
http/php on bge0 and the other was serving clamav/spamassassin at the  
same time.

On the origination side I did top and the load barely moved during  
the ftp and system CPU time was a few % higher.  Not ideal but not a  
deal breaker either.

Chad

>
> 2) Intel 2.0Ghz Celeron 845 Chipset, onboard fxp
> controller:
>
> ftp results: 11MB/s
>
> I think we'll all agree that a 1.8Ghz opteron is
> substantially faster (and more expensive) then a
> 2.0Ghz Celeron? (or will Jerry ask me to prove
> this also)? Its not rocket science. What good is
> the extra horsepower of the cpu doing you if
> you're using a crap controller? Its mindless
> stupidity; which is about what you'd expect from
> a sys admin, and not an engineer. The problem
> with this list is that its all sys admins, so
> learning from other idiots just causes  you to be
> just as stupid at your "teachers".
>
> DT
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- 
> unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net