Wich Intel adapter is best for low CPU usage?

Hi
I have the need to engineer low cpu power machines, hence I would need
an Intel network adapter that should use the minimum amount of CPU
power as possible (offloading some function is a greatly welcome
option).
Even a low IRQ usage would be welcome.

For our purposes we're using Intel PRO100+ cards now, but I've heard
there are cards that do use less cpu, hence I'm asking if there can be
a better match, like the

PRO 100/M
PRO 100/MT
PRO 100/S

....
....
etc


and many other Intel cards both for the desktop and server market.

Money is not a problem here, cpu time is.


Many thanks!
Daevon

"Daevon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<bnje8k$2hi$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Hi
> I have the need to engineer low cpu power machines, hence I would need
> an Intel network adapter that should use the minimum amount of CPU
> power as possible (offloading some function is a greatly welcome
> option).
> Even a low IRQ usage would be welcome.
>
> For our purposes we're using Intel PRO100+ cards now, but I've heard
> there are cards that do use less cpu, hence I'm asking if there can be
> a better match, like the
>
> PRO 100/M
> PRO 100/MT
> PRO 100/S
>
> ...
> ...
> etc
>
>
> and many other Intel cards both for the desktop and server market.
>
> Money is not a problem here, cpu time is.
>
>
> Many thanks!
> Daevon


Probably the best source of information for you would be the Intel web
site.

http://www.intel.com

You could also do an internet search and maybe find non-intel cards
that perform better.

Little off-topic isn't it?

Maybe a little OT, yes... but I've even tried the Intel newsgroup and got no
answer so I resorted in asking here.
And, NO, Intel does't mind to tell you what adapter uses less cpu. Nor does
the average windows user care.
Thanks anyway

"Daevon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<bnoc8n$dl6$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Maybe a little OT, yes... but I've even tried the Intel newsgroup and got no
> answer so I resorted in asking here.
> And, NO, Intel does't mind to tell you what adapter uses less cpu. Nor does
> the average windows user care.
> Thanks anyway

Naughty Intel newsgroup.

Have you tried asking Intel direct?

http://supportmail.intel.com/scripts...sp?id=38,59,60

Even if Intel are /nearly/ the spawn of Satan, I have been provided
with prompt responses previously.

Thanks for the reply Mattias

I have already triedasking Intel and they told me to use their latest model
(Pro 100 M) because it is the only supported one.
The others are either discontinued or something like that.
I was searching for someone with first-hand experience.
Asking again won't kill me tho, since I used another address

In article <bnje8k$2hi$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Hi
> I have the need to engineer low cpu power machines, hence I would need
> an Intel network adapter that should use the minimum amount of CPU
> power as possible (offloading some function is a greatly welcome
> option).
> Even a low IRQ usage would be welcome.

If you really want low CPU overhead from a NIC, it isn't going to come
from Intel. Alacritech is your best bet. Unbelievably low CPU overhead,
with outstanding performance.

> Money is not a problem here, cpu time is.

That's a good thing, because they are not cheap.

--
Randy Howard _o
2reply remove FOOBAR \<,
______________________()/ ()______________________________________________
SCO Spam-magnet: (E-Mail Removed)

Look at the linux drivers from Intel web site and see which chipset is
supporting udp checksum offloading, TCP checksum/segmentation offloading and
interrupt bundling. then select the card that fit yor need with the right
chipset My experience is that any 82544 based card should fit your need.
Beware that default options at the driver level may not be set properly ;-)

"Daevon" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:bnje8k$2hi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi
> I have the need to engineer low cpu power machines, hence I would need
> an Intel network adapter that should use the minimum amount of CPU
> power as possible (offloading some function is a greatly welcome
> option).
> Even a low IRQ usage would be welcome.
>
> For our purposes we're using Intel PRO100+ cards now, but I've heard
> there are cards that do use less cpu, hence I'm asking if there can be
> a better match, like the
>
> PRO 100/M
> PRO 100/MT
> PRO 100/S
>
> ...
> ...
> etc
>
>
> and many other Intel cards both for the desktop and server market.
>
> Money is not a problem here, cpu time is.
>
>
> Many thanks!
> Daevon
>
>