From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:30:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:30:16 -0400 Received: from [208.48.139.185] ([208.48.139.185]:38072 "HELO forty.greenhydrant.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:30:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:30:01 -0700 From: David Rees To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Network Performance Testing Summary Message-ID: <20010605213001.A13200@greenhydrant.com> Mail-Followup-To: David Rees , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jw2357@hotmail.com on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 02:52:03AM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 02:52:03AM +0000, John William wrote: > > The curse of the HP Vectra XU 5/90 strikes again! > > What is interesting is that I tried the NetGear FA310, FA311, 3COM 3cSOHO > and 3C905C-TX cards and both the receive and transmit speeds (measured with > both iperf and netperf) were so close to each other as to be a non-issue. > > Several people e-mailed me to let me know that "card 'X' performance is > terrible, I can only get good performance with card 'Y'". So, I just thought > I should send this message out to set things a bit straight. Did you monitor CPU usage during these tests? I did some throughput comparing a DLink RTL8139 based card to a 3C905C-TX card on a K6-2 450. Both managed to fully saturate 100Mbps. However, the DLink used up ~90% CPU, and the 3Com only used about 50% CPU. This was on 2.4.5, with the 8139too driver from 2.4.3. -Dave