On 19 Apr 2003 23:01:32 +0100
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sad, 2003-04-19 at 18:38, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > I don't buy that explanation. Reason is simple: during this all network
> > connections work flawlessly, and they do have quite a lot of interrupts
> > compared to ISDN. ISDN is so slow and has so few interrupts that it is
> > quite unlikely in a SMP-beyond-GHz-limit box that you loose some. The
> > ancient hardware days are long gone ...
>
> I'd suggest buying his explanation, because he's right. You are
> confusing quantity and latency.
Sorry Alan, "been there, done that"
I made ISDN work on just about anything that you would call an OS on sometimes
quite ancient hardware (compared to nowadays), and I really cannot imagine that
the combined (though sometimes confusing) efforts of you, Andre, Pavel, name-one
on IDE made a dual 1.4 GHz PIII slower (responding) than a M68k 7,14 MHz with a
polling IDE interface - which happens to be the slowest thing I ever did ISDN
programming on _flawlessly_.
Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:27 EST