Go Back   nV News Forums > Linux Support Forums > NVIDIA Linux

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-23-05, 04:38 PM   #1
fateswarm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4
Default nvnet vs forcedeth

uhm, I'm reading on the forcedeth code file that it's supposed to be experimental compared to nvnet. However, has anyone made any benchmarking on those two? I'm currently back on using nvnet, but I was wondering if it's the right thing.
fateswarm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-06, 10:51 AM   #2
Fisch.666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Hi!

I just want to start a new thread about this question but found this thread here.
What is the difference between the forcedeth driver build in the kernel and the nvnet module which is available in this driver package:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_nforce_1.0-0310.html

Which one is recommended?

Thanks in advance for an reply.
Fisch.666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-06, 08:28 PM   #3
etymxris
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 46
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

"experimental" is an overused word in linux. I've been using forcedeth for a while with absolutely no problems. I was worried that it only ran at 100Mbps rather than 1000Mbps since it's in the 100Mbps section of the kernel drivers, but some informal file copies across the network shows that that does not appear to be the case.
etymxris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-06, 09:44 PM   #4
Kevin-B
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 12
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm
uhm, I'm reading on the forcedeth code file that it's supposed to be experimental compared to nvnet. However, has anyone made any benchmarking on those two? I'm currently back on using nvnet, but I was wondering if it's the right thing.
I'd be interested in seeing some benchmarks.

In terms of stability, I've had no trouble with forcedeth. I've been using it for over a year and a half now with no problems.
Kevin-B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-06, 05:15 AM   #5
kmare
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: greece
Posts: 180
Send a message via ICQ to kmare
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Don't know about any benchmarks, but forcedeth is working great here. Also in the yet unreleased kernel 2.6.17 the driver is no more marked as experimental.
kmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-06, 07:25 AM   #6
Fisch.666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Hi!

Thanks for this informations. I've switched from nvnet to forcedeth, because i think forcedeth is more up to date...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-B
I'd be interested in seeing some benchmarks.
I've done some benchmarks with Netio from http://freshmeat.net/projects/netio/ (Don't know if this is a good benchmark for this)

Here are my results:

With nvnet:

Quote:
./netio -t 192.168.178.3

NETIO - Network Throughput Benchmark, Version 1.26
(C) 1997-2005 Kai Uwe Rommel

TCP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 8408 KByte/s Tx, 8259 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 2k bytes: 8408 KByte/s Tx, 8310 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 4k bytes: 8373 KByte/s Tx, 8354 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 8k bytes: 8442 KByte/s Tx, 8337 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 16k bytes: 8408 KByte/s Tx, 8132 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 32k bytes: 8453 KByte/s Tx, 8238 KByte/s Rx.
Done.

./netio -u 192.168.178.3

NETIO - Network Throughput Benchmark, Version 1.26
(C) 1997-2005 Kai Uwe Rommel

UDP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 11374 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11440 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 2k bytes: 11412 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11478 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 4k bytes: 11618 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11667 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 8k bytes: 11629 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11674 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 16k bytes: 11634 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11675 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 32k bytes: 11679 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11705 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Done.
and with forcedeth:

Quote:
./netio -t 192.168.178.3

NETIO - Network Throughput Benchmark, Version 1.26
(C) 1997-2005 Kai Uwe Rommel

TCP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 8497 KByte/s Tx, 8290 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 2k bytes: 8407 KByte/s Tx, 8261 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 4k bytes: 8372 KByte/s Tx, 8283 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 8k bytes: 8366 KByte/s Tx, 8333 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 16k bytes: 8434 KByte/s Tx, 8258 KByte/s Rx.
Packet size 32k bytes: 8440 KByte/s Tx, 8285 KByte/s Rx.
Done.

./netio -u 192.168.178.3

NETIO - Network Throughput Benchmark, Version 1.26
(C) 1997-2005 Kai Uwe Rommel

UDP connection established.
Packet size 1k bytes: 11375 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11442 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 2k bytes: 11403 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11477 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 4k bytes: 11611 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11667 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 8k bytes: 11628 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11679 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 16k bytes: 11632 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11683 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Packet size 32k bytes: 11658 KByte/s (0%) Tx, 11689 KByte/s (0%) Rx.
Done.
Fisch.666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-06, 08:43 AM   #7
kenyee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 148
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Thanks, Fisch. I've been curious about that myself. Now I'm glad I'm using the open source forcedeth driver ;-)
kenyee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-06, 10:42 AM   #8
ismail
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Even Nvidia engineers are now working on forcedeth ( oh the irony ) so its the best choice.
ismail is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-06, 10:52 AM   #9
Lithorus
Registered User
 
Lithorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 783
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Quote:
Originally Posted by ismail
Even Nvidia engineers are now working on forcedeth ( oh the irony ) so its the best choice.
Actually even nvidia recommend using the forcedeth driver. I think the nvnet driver is only meant for older kernels which doesn't have an up-to-date forcedeth driver. Spending time on getting the forcedeth driver better is a natural choice for nvidia.
Lithorus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-06, 01:16 PM   #10
PrakashP
gentoo ~x86_64 user
 
PrakashP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Germania
Posts: 213
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

If using nforce3 and up I'd be interested to know whether cpu utilization is lower with nvnet, as this can do some hw offloading, while forcedeth doesn't.
PrakashP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-06, 07:10 PM   #11
Fisch.666
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Hi!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lithorus
Actually even nvidia recommend using the forcedeth driver. I think the nvnet driver is only meant for older kernels which doesn't have an up-to-date forcedeth driver. Spending time on getting the forcedeth driver better is a natural choice for nvidia.
Thanks for this info. Maybe this should be noticed somewhere in the readme because i've used the nvnet over an half year...
Fisch.666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-06, 07:44 PM   #12
am2020
Quadro4
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Default Re: nvnet vs forcedeth

Just my 2 cents:
I can't get the nvnet driver to work full duplex 100Mbps.
So I am using forcedeth...
am2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NVNET device not present, delaying activation robothefan NVIDIA Linux 4 10-01-02 09:43 PM
nvnet drivers in kernel, not module? xaphod NVIDIA Linux 2 08-10-02 12:03 PM
Problem with Ethernet (nvnet) driver for RH 7.3 bernz NVIDIA Linux 4 08-05-02 10:18 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.