From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <179078CB-5E08-4F42-8020-0BEBA81CDB75@orthanc.ca>
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <225e6f4e59d66eacba8ad8459c59f9f9@quanstro.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v912)
Subject: Re: [9fans] Intel Pro/1000 PT support?
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:58:41 -0800
References: <225e6f4e59d66eacba8ad8459c59f9f9@quanstro.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f6777762-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


On 2007-Nov-12, at 17:34 , erik quanstrom wrote:

> by the way, we've found the pro/1000 pt dual to be more cost-=20
> effective.
> if you have too many ports to use 2 dual cards, it would probablly be
> more effective to use myricom cards with 10gbaseCX4 ports

Thanks for the info Erik.  I'll do a cost comparison between the 2x2 =20
vs. 1x4 config.  Traffic volume isn't a big concern =97 this is for a =20=

machine that will be a (mostly) passive network monitor for several =20
LAN segments at a remote site.

--lyndon=