From: hagan@freya.cs.umass.edu (Craig I. Hagan) Subject: Re: Need 3c501 driver Date: 12 Jan 1993 18:26:18 GMT
In article <1993Jan11.210006.25237@super.org> becker@super.org (Donald J. Becker) writes:
Path: dime!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!super!becker
From: becker@super.org (Donald J. Becker)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:00:06 GMT
References: <michaelw.726417607@mcshh.hanse.de> <1993Jan7.174127.3075@super.org> <1993Jan9.002313.12543@brainiac.mn.org>
Sender: news@super.org (USENET News System)
Organization: IDA Supercomputing Research Center
Lines: 32
Nntp-Posting-Host: metropolis
In article <1993Jan9.002313.12543@brainiac.mn.org> jrc@brainiac.mn.org (Jeffrey Comstock) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.174127.3075@super.org> becker@super.org (Donald J. Becker) writes:
>>The 3c501 is an ancient product with documentation that's no longer
>>being printed. It has a single packet buffer that is shared between
>>transmit and receive. By this I mean that when you have a packet it
>>cannot receive another packet. While you are offloading
>>that packet it cannot receive a packet. While you are loading a new
>>packet to transmit it cannot receive a packet. While you are waiting
>>to transmit it cannot receive a packet. While... well, you get the
>>idea -- you miss most packets. And I haven't even started describing
>>the bugs.
>
>I have used 3c501's for a long time, and yes they suck, but you are totally
>full of crap. They work fine for some applications. People are giving
>them away, and they beat the hell out of a SLIP line, which is what you
>would probably be running if you didn't have ether. Please just shut up.
I am currently running mach/i386 on my box, with a 3c501 card.
I see throughput of about 150 K/s which isn't bad at all.
considering the cost of the card, it is much better than 0 K/s
-- craig