Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!wsmith
From: wsmith@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Warren Smith [Randy])
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: LANCE vs. Intel (was Token Ring (was: Re: Info on LANs))
Message-ID: <10756@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>
Date: 10 Jan 89 19:57:25 GMT
References: <12786@cup.portal.com> <920001@hposdl.HP.COM> <10777@s.ms.uky.edu> <11060@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <11065@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <84@feathers.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: wsmith@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Warren Smith [Randy])
Organization: CSci Dept., University of Minnesota, Mpls.
Lines: 23

In article <84@feathers.ATT.COM> djh@feathers.ATT.COM (Dan Hansen--615-5450) writes:
>
>The Intel 82586 allows the programmer to scatter a frame (for
>transmission or reception) in non-contiguous buffers.  In addition
>the number of bytes in each buffer is chosen by the programmer.
>This flexibility is why the 82586 is THE most powerful LAN controller
>on the market (sez me).  [...]

The Lance also has this capability (and debatably (!) the scatter/gather is
better because each buffer has an individual size).

It should be pointed out that Van's tests all use the Sun Intel controller.
I am sure the problems with bandwidth all relate to that controller, since
a large+fast dual-ported buffer should let either of these two chips
crank data at near 10Mbps.

Randy
wsmith@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu

-- 
Randy Smith
wsmith@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
...!rutgers!umn-cs!wsmith