netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: The ultimate TOE design

To: "'James Morris'" <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'John Heffner'" <jheffner@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: The ultimate TOE design
From: "Leonid Grossman" <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:37:04 -0700
Cc: "'Netdev'" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Xine.LNX.4.44.0409151914400.32649-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcSbegcP7sjzlZ6wTRuboNhJ31SBhgAAhlxg
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Morris [mailto:jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 4:16 PM
> To: John Heffner
> Cc: Netdev; leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The ultimate TOE design
> 
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, John Heffner wrote:
> 
> > The other (much nicer) solution to case (b) is to just USE 
> A BIGGER MTU.
> > 1500 bytes is ridiculously small.  Even with a 9k MTU, the 
> benefits of 
> > TOE or TSO are nearly vanishing.
> 
> Do you have any figures on (large) MTU size vs performance on 
> a current commidity system?

It's very system-dependent. Say on 2-way Xeon our card goes from ~2Gbps to
~6Gbps, on 64-bit systems the delta is obviously less.

For 9k MTU, the delta goes down of course but it is still ~10% on 2.6
systems - say on 2-way Opterons we go from 7Gbps to 7.6Gbps.

Leonid

> 
> 
> - James
> --
> James Morris
> <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 


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