netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN)
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20010131133123.A7875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3A76B72D.2DD3E640@xxxxxxxxxx> <3A728475.34CF841@xxxxxxxxxx> <3A726087.764CC02E@xxxxxxxxxx> <20010126222003.A11994@xxxxxxxxxxx> <14966.22671.446439.838872@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14966.47384.971741.939842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3A76D6A4.2385185E@xxxxxxxxxx> <20010131064911.B7244@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14967.15765.553667.802101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010131133123.A7875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chris Wedgwood writes:
 > There are ... <pause> ... 3 switches between four switches in
 > between, mostly linked via GE. I'm not sure if latency might be an
 > issue here, is it was critical I can imagine 10 km of glass might be
 > a problem but it's not _that_ far...

Other than this, I don't know what to postulate.  Really,
most reports and my own experimentation (directly connected
Linux knfsd to 2.4.x nfs client) supports the fact that our
client can saturate 100baseT rather fully.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@xxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>