Well, my uCsimm can't even push maxing out the 10bt interface so there
is really no point in adding anything faster. Choosing a 100bt chip
over a 10bt would only add extra cost not extra speed.
Patrick Stingley wrote:
> This is a good question and one that I have debated at length
> elsewhere. I would have to think that a 100Mbps ethernet controller
> would have to deal with a blocked state if the CPU is busy doing
> something else. Similarly, I would think that the CPU would deal with
> traffic from an ethernet interface in an interrupt-driven fashion.
> So, it shouldn't matter if the CPU isn't very fast, the ethernet
> interface should go into blocked mode and either buffer packets or NAK
> them and wait for the processor.
> I'm not a EE, but merely a lowly computer scientist, so hopefully one
> of the wire twisters in our midst will step up to the plate and shed
> some light on this subject.
> Best regards,
> Pat Stingley
> At 03:50 PM 10/5/00 +0200, Alex Beregszaszi wrote:
>> Hy :)
>> Are they 100mbit/s ethernet circuits too?
>> Or this CPU too slow to handle (route) so big bandwith?
>> This message resent by the firstname.lastname@example.org list server
> This message resent by the email@example.com list server
This message resent by the firstname.lastname@example.org list server http://www.uClinux.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 00:01:38 EST