If I remember correctly "pppoe uses obsolete (PF_INET, SOCK_PACKET)" is just warning that happens with the older version of the PPPoE client that is available for LEAF, the error basically means nothing. Theoretically since we are dealing with less than 5mbit of traffic a ISA card is should be proficent in most cases, as long as one remembers that any NE2000 compatable cards typically wont cant get close to 5mbit and tend to cause packet collisions while a 3com 5c509b ISA card are known for being more stable and faster than any other ISA NIC and even some low end PCI NIC's (RealTek cards for example)
-Kenneth Hadley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kenneth Hadley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "leaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE > I wonder how much of a difference ISA to PCI makes in speed? I have > noticed on both Eigerstein2beta and Dachstein with PPPoE I keep getting > the message " pppoe uses obsolete (PF_INET, SOCK_PACKET). Anything I > should be concerned with? > > Kenneth Hadley wrote: > > >To tell the truth I'm not sure exactly why I saw such a dramatic speed > >boost. > >When my total incoming bandwidth reached 1mbit (and usually not much > >further) I saw CPU usage on my AMD583-133 reach 70% typically but this was > >with a 3com 3c509b ISA card on the WAN side (eth0) and a NetGear 310tx PCI > >on the LAN side (eth1) > >After upgrading to a P200MMX system with a 3com 3c905 PCI on the WAN side > >and a NetGear 310tx PCI on the LAN side I saw bandwidth reach 1670mbit > >(which is faster than should be possiable on my DSL circuit) with a CPU > >usage of 35%. > >I have received emails from folks saying that they had also noticed much > >faster downloads after upgrading their boxes to Pentium machines. > >One thing I remember about standard 802.3 ethernet TCP segment sizes are > >that they are 1460 while PPPoE TCP segment sizes are 1452, the end result is > >that if you do not enable the "-m 1452" option in the Roaring Penguin PPPoE > >client (and it IS on by default) you will be wasting packets. This > >conversion that the PPPoE client does consumes CPU cycles in addition to the > >normal Ethernet to PPP encapsulation. > > > >fun fun fun > > > >-Kenneth Hadley > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Robert Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Paul Rimmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "leaf" > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kenneth Hadley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 6:56 PM > >Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE > > > > > >>The little 486DLC-40 that I have limits my downloads to about 538kbps on > >>my DSL connection. According to Ken, anything less then a 486DX4 100 > >>you will notice a speed dive. It has to do with the way PPP sends the > >>packets. On the receiving end the cpu must recombine the packets which > >>is where the performance issues come into play. A faster processor will > >>recombine the packets faster. > >>I also find this interesting in that upgrading from a AMD586-133 to an > >>Intel P200MMX there is a noticable speed difference. Is it because of > >>the increase in clock speed or differences between AMD and Intel? Which > >>I am not sure of. > >>Robert Chambers > >> > >>Paul Rimmer wrote: > >> > >>>>Or just upgrade to a low end pentium...since a 486 WILL lag after > >>>>a 1mbit of > >>>>DSL traffic ( I upgraded at home from a AMD586-133 to a Intel P200MMX > >>>>(overkill but it was just collecting dust) and it shocked me how > >>>>quicker my > >>>>downloads became) > >>>> > >>>>-Kenneth Hadley > >>>> > >>>This really suprises me. I was under the impression that a 486/66 would > >>> > >be > > > >>>able to service a maxed out cable modem? I happen to be using a 486/66 > >>> > >on a > > > >>>cable connection but will upgrade if it will help throughput. > >>> > >>>Any comments on 486 vs Pentium servicing a cable or ADSL modem? > >>> > >>>Cheers, > >>>Paul > >>> > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Leaf-user mailing list > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
