home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:10838 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:19969
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!van-bc!nwnexus!seanews!billmcc
- From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
- Subject: Re: Help on upgrade to 16550A UART
- Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 04:33:56 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Jul21.043356.10368@seanews.akita.com>
- References: <1992Jul16.170654.19057@kumr.lns.com> <1992Jul16.170422.18981@kumr.lns.com> <1992Jul19.112553@mycro.UUCP>
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <1992Jul19.112553@mycro.UUCP> scott@mycro.UUCP (Scott C. Sadow) writes:
- > There is only 1 reason to replace a 8250/16450 with a 16550A -
- >interrupt latency.
-
- Bzzt. Thank you for playing.
-
- Interrupt latency is important -- and is the only important thing on
- *single tasking* systems.
-
- For multi-tasking systems, however, the goal is not only to not miss any
- characters, it's also to allow other processes time to execute.
-
- > Should you replace you current UART with a 16550A? I would only do so
- >if you are seeing problems like reduced throughput and/or high error rates.
-
- Or if you want your entire system to perform better.
-
- Bill
- --
- SEANEWS [] Seattle News + Mail [] +1 206 937 9529
- billmcc@seanews.akita.com Public Access
-
- -------CUT HERE------ PGP Public Key -------CUT HERE------
- begin 644 key.pub
- MF;, :RX&*2U-8T-O<FUI8VLL(%=I;&QI86T@0BX@+2!B:6QL;6-C0&UI8W)O
- M<V]F="YC;VW> P6K(=3;81O95TXWV"<CNQ+M)+:CI6F@1"G_]15^5MW&*U_>
- M/TN?83RRF=O3*L0#N4B(ZU2 !/?F>,^J.LO%G*DA/Z\ '=!FL(5S7H2W;_T&
- M$/;[OJV=/%6- WFVTR#(''.](%&>D+[#H)%X6^-*P\QHN$Q<DD >/'RJ"CH%
- " !?[
-
- end
- -------CUT HERE------ PGP Public Key -------CUT HERE------
-