Tue Dec 22 14:37:36 1998
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Nils Rennebarth wrote:
> > Anyway, .90f solves the media detection problems we were having with the
> > 21143 chip as used on the API/Samsung Alpha motherboards.
> Yeah, and it solves my problems with the Macronix 98715 card too.
> That's really nice because these cards are quite cheap here, i.e. $24 each.
It still doesn't work well with the Lite-On Netgear cards (or the card is
really a piece of garbage). Here's a little test:
file = ungzipped 2.1.127 linux kernel (still tarred)
10.0.0.1 = SMC Etherpower II
10.0.0.51 = SMC Etherpower II
126.96.36.199 = SMC Etherpower II
188.8.131.52 = Netgear FA310TX w/ Lite-On
10.0.0.51 -> 10.0.0.1
time scp file 10.0.0.1:/tmp
file | 50670 KB | 904.8 kB/s | ETA: 00:00:00 | 100%
184.108.40.206 -> 220.127.116.11
time scp file 18.104.22.168:/tmp
file | 50670 KB | 1034.1 kB/s | ETA: 00:00:00 | 100%
10.0.0.1 -> 10.0.0.51
time scp file 10.0.0.51:/tmp
file | 50670 KB | 830.7 kB/s | ETA: 00:00:00 | 100%
0.060u 1.800s 1:00.45 3.0% 0+0k 0+0io 12783pf+0w
22.214.171.124 -> 126.96.36.199
time scp file 188.8.131.52:/tmp
file | 50670 KB | 164.0 kB/s | ETA: 00:00:00 | 100%
0.090u 0.780s 5:09.08 0.2% 0+0k 0+0io 800pf+0w
Am I just missing something, or is this device receiving at about 1/5 the
speed of the Etherpower II?! I mean, the lower system CPU numbers are
great, but not if I'm only getting 164 kBps over *ethernet*. (BTW, there
are no firewalls involved in any of these cases.) Is this just a matter of
time before the driver gets better performance than this? Or is this card
just fatally flawed? Or is my *test* flawed somehow?
> > Thank you very much Donald, once again you have been very helpful, and we
> > do appreciate it!
> > Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!
> Frome here too :-)
I agree wholeheartedly! Keep up the great work! (And death to
manufacturers that try to sneakily switch chips and call it a new
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin