Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (5130 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] Lokking for suitable GBit-Network adapter
- From: Michael W Cocke <cocke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 06:42:59 -0400
- Message-id: <uqam52tq0d2pmorhibdmc5a5i87qa82lkr@xxxxxxx>
On Wed, 03 May 2006 19:16:37 +0200, you wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 09:07 +0200, Juergen Mell wrote:
>> I am looking for a GBit network adapter which is well-supported under SUSE
>> 10.0 for our (small) server.
>Intel server cards would be my first choice. The other I have
>experience with (doesn't blow my hair back but I can't complain about
>them either) are the Broadcom NetXtreme BCM5701 cards. Be advised that
>both are PCI-x cards, and neither of them perform that much better than
>a decent 100mbit card if you put it in an ordinary PCI slot. The
>broadcom cards also come in a 3com branded card.
>
>> We will have 3 of these adapters in the server,
>> so the CPU load generated by the driver should not be too high.
>That's what the above mentioned cards are for. That's also why they
>cost six times as much as other gigabit cards.
>
>> Intel
>> adapaters seem to have some serious problems (sometimes locking the whole
>> system for several milliseconds, so three of them are simply out of
>> discussion)
>I wasn't a ware of this. I have several machines with Intel gigabit
>cards in. One of them is a file server for a large engineering firm -
>it has four Intel gigabit cards on, and the type of usage is such that
>both the 5x 15000rpm scsi raid-5 set is running at full speed most of
>the time. If there is any delay from the network cards, it's not enough
>for any one to notice.
>
>Hans
I have a much MUCH smaller setup, but with a pair of intel 1000/T
cards in the server I can stream video on both lines with no glitches,
with a bit of capacity left (I can't run a backup, but I can do normal
app data file accesses). I couldn't manage that with one intel card
and one broadcom.
Mike-
--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
>On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 09:07 +0200, Juergen Mell wrote:
>> I am looking for a GBit network adapter which is well-supported under SUSE
>> 10.0 for our (small) server.
>Intel server cards would be my first choice. The other I have
>experience with (doesn't blow my hair back but I can't complain about
>them either) are the Broadcom NetXtreme BCM5701 cards. Be advised that
>both are PCI-x cards, and neither of them perform that much better than
>a decent 100mbit card if you put it in an ordinary PCI slot. The
>broadcom cards also come in a 3com branded card.
>
>> We will have 3 of these adapters in the server,
>> so the CPU load generated by the driver should not be too high.
>That's what the above mentioned cards are for. That's also why they
>cost six times as much as other gigabit cards.
>
>> Intel
>> adapaters seem to have some serious problems (sometimes locking the whole
>> system for several milliseconds, so three of them are simply out of
>> discussion)
>I wasn't a ware of this. I have several machines with Intel gigabit
>cards in. One of them is a file server for a large engineering firm -
>it has four Intel gigabit cards on, and the type of usage is such that
>both the 5x 15000rpm scsi raid-5 set is running at full speed most of
>the time. If there is any delay from the network cards, it's not enough
>for any one to notice.
>
>Hans
I have a much MUCH smaller setup, but with a pair of intel 1000/T
cards in the server I can stream video on both lines with no glitches,
with a bit of capacity left (I can't run a backup, but I can do normal
app data file accesses). I couldn't manage that with one intel card
and one broadcom.
Mike-
--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed
site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces,
try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
| < Previous | Next > |