From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from colo.lackof.org (colo.lackof.org [198.49.126.79]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE17C487B for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:37:49 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:37:48 -0700 From: Grant Grundler To: Joel Soete Cc: parisc-linux Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] C110 builtin nic slow? Message-ID: <20031110173748.GD24664@colo.lackof.org> References: <3F969FFE00009E0B@ocpmta2.freegates.net> <3F969FFE00009EA4@ocpmta2.freegates.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3F969FFE00009EA4@ocpmta2.freegates.net> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 01:31:45PM +0100, Joel Soete wrote: > ie a Lasi_82596 (as Matthew mentioned in a previous mail). yeah - that's not going to perform as well as tulip. And 10-Half is going to be substantially slower. Sounds like it has a bug in the negotiation. grant