[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The ultimate TOE design

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The ultimate TOE design
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:20:33 +0200
Cc: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040915144624.1339fbc5.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4148991B.9050200@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.NEB.4.33.0409151704200.5383-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040915144624.1339fbc5.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 02:46:24PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:36:18 -0400 (EDT)
> John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> 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.  Those who say they require high performance,
> > but are unwilling to buy or produce networking gear with an MTU larger
> > than 1500 bytes probably deserve what they get.
> TSO gives a kind of virtual 64K MTU, FWIW.  But I do see your
> point.

We still need to solve the same problem for RX though.


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