Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!quick!srg
From: srg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Token Ring (was: Re: Info on LANs)
Message-ID: <295@quick.COM>
Date: 6 Jan 89 11:07:56 GMT
References: <12786@cup.portal.com> <920001@hposdl.HP.COM> <10777@s.ms.uky.edu> <327@belltec.UUCP>
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle
Lines: 14

In article <327@belltec.UUCP>, jim@belltec.UUCP (Mr. Jim's Own Logon) writes:
-> At Bell Technologies, we have AT
-> compatible cards using a LANCE and one using a 82586. Measuring end to end
-> throughput, the 82586 card clearly outperforms the 8390 (LANCE).  But this 
-> is because the 82586 card has a 16 bit interface to the dual port memory. I'm
-> sure something similar is present in the Mr. Jacobson's test. 
-> ... 
-> P.S.  Everything I have heard about the chip level bugs of the LANCE make it
->       something to run far away from, especially if you are the code pig that
->       has to do the driver.

Ahem.  The 8390 is a National part, and is indeed buggy.  The LANCE
is an AMD part (Am7990), has a 16-bit DMA interface, and is about
as bug-free as they come.