On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:53:31PM +0300, Sergey Zaharchenko wrote: > Hello John! > > Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:10:12AM -0500 you wrote: > [snip] > > Have you tried using nfe(4)? :) > > Now I have, and it works just fine, thanks (I somehow thought nfe was > specific to some platform). Why isn't it the default? Smaller range of > hardware supported? > AFAIK, nfe(4) supports more hardwares than that of nve(4). Try overhauled nfe(4) in the following URL. http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfe.c http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfereg.h http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/nfe/if_nfevar.h The patch fixed serveral bugs in nfe(4) and it should perform better than nve(4). The following hardware features are supported. o TSO o Tx/Rx IP/TCP/UDP checksum offload o VLAN hardware tag insertion/stripping o Jumbo frame(up to 9100 bytes) It seems that the hardware supports MSI/MSI-X too but I don't have nForce hardwares that supports MSI/MSI-X so it's hard to implement/ experiment it. Accoring to the Shigeaki Tagashira, the author of FreeBSD nfe(4), his hardware claims to support 8 messages. I've checked Linux forcedeth driver to get hardware information for MSI/MSI-X but it I cound't understand the details. :-( -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeonReceived on Wed Jan 10 2007 - 23:39:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:04 UTC