What's funny is the author talks about a more 'sophisticated' stack and mentions linux, which because of the sockets API can't even receive without copying, which is worse than what we have, hehe ;-) And what he mentions as performance boost in "4. TCP/IP stack" is met by lwIP!
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frédéric
BERNON
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:31 PM
To: Mailing list for lwIP users; Goldschmidt Simon
Subject: RE : [lwip-users] lwIP reference in Embedded Systems
Designmagazine(previously DHCP - getting address works but not responding)
http://www.embedded.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=199202775
I you want to read it...
====================================
Frédéric BERNON
HYMATOM SA
Chef de projet informatique
Microsoft Certified Professional
Tél. : +33 (0)4-67-87-61-10
Fax. : +33 (0)4-67-70-85-44
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Site : http://www.hymatom.fr <http://www.hymatom.fr/>
====================================
P Avant d'imprimer, penser à l'environnement
-----Message d'origine-----
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
Pettinato, Jim
Envoyé : lundi 14 mai 2007 21:08
À : Goldschmidt Simon; Mailing list for lwIP users
Objet : [lwip-users] lwIP reference in Embedded Systems Design
magazine(previously DHCP - getting address works but not responding)
Actually, the author used the word 'advanced' ('sophisticated'
was my paraphrasing) - and my interpretation was that he was referring to
throughput, primarily - specifically referencing zero-copy and checksum bypass
features...
Hasn't that very topic come up recently with regard to lwIP??
;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Goldschmidt Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:48 PM
To: Pettinato, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AW: [lwip-users] DHCP - getting address works
but not responding
Cool! I'd like to see an independent comparision of
lwIP vs. a more "sophisticated" stack, though!
As I am not a native speaker, what exactly do you think
they meant with 'sophisticated'? I think we also have some clever ideas in our
stack ;-) OK, we might have to work a little to get it fast and real stable.
And I'm biased, too (of course)...
-----Originalnachricht-----
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: Mailing list for lwIP users
Gesendet: 14.05.2007 19:24
Betreff: RE: [lwip-users] DHCP - getting address works
but not responding
All,
For those that might be interested, the cover feature
of this month's
Embedded Systems Design magazine ("Put a Configurable
32-bit Processor
in Your FPGA", N. Sundaramoothy, E.S.D. May 2007)
mentions lwIP as the
sole example of a stack for use with a 'lite' Ethernet
subsystem in the
titular application.
Unfortunately, the author recommends a more
sophisticated stack if a
higher throughput is required... personally I think
lwIP could still fit
the bill, but hey, I might be biased. ;)
Congrats and thanks again to everyone who has
contributed and supported
the lwIP project - it's good to see acknowlegement in
an accepted
industry publication such as E.S.D.!
- Jim
_______________________________________________
lwip-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
