Re: [cobalt-developers] Re: Replacing eepro100 with e100,...

[Chris Johnson <cj.johnson@xxxxxxx>]

    From     : Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxx>
    > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
    > 
    > >         So I would ask in return, any reason why Sun/Cobalt
    > > decided to go with eepro100 instead of e100?
    > 
    > General consensus amongst kernel mailing list is that e100 sucks.
    > Further, when we started hacking on eepro100.c, e100 was not
    > available, I believe. 

As Tim says, e100 didn't exist at the outset of the Cobalt RaQ3
effort, so our choices were limited.  At a later date, I put in
an effort to stabilize the RaQ3 and RaQ4 line under extreme load
on 4 eepro interfaces.

I evaluated the e100 (e1000-1.1.1) at that time, and it failed
catastrophically under load on a single interface, whereas the
eepro100 needed three interfaces to get indigestion.  It was an
easy decision to move forward on the eepro100.c

At this stage, I can't make any claims about the e100, since I
would guess that it has evolved from V1.1.1.  I do know that our
eepro100 is decent.

cj*