| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes? |
| From: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:36:18 -0800 |
| In-reply-to: | <20050127165707.250ee514.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <41F1516D.5010101@xxxxxx> <200501211358.53783.jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx> <41F163AD.5070400@xxxxxx> <20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F17B7E.2020002@xxxxxx> <20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F186A8.9030805@xxxxxx> <20050121204948.034b2510.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F55B93.6040603@xxxxxx> <20050124124353.2f760e1a.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F98306.6070804@xxxxxx> <20050127165707.250ee514.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041206 |
David S. Miller wrote: On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:10:46 -0800 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> wrote:The other relates to the business of disabling TSO on a connection upon packet loss.There cannot possibly any compliance issues resulting from turning off an optimization in the face of packet loss. I was a bit vague - compliance with the benchmark run and report rules, not with RFC's. Internet connected systems experience non-trivial packet loss rates and so if TSO disabled upon packet loss it means a given benchmark result using TSO deviates even more from reality than one without TSO.And running the benchmark over a local gigabit subnet doesn't deviate from what Internet connected systems can expect to achieve how-so? Benchmarking, not logic... Oh you mean I really can get 60,000 web or database connections a second when the users are over modems half-way across the planet? Give me a break... If there are enough users :) Anyways, see my other posting, we'll be able to keep TSO enabled in the face of packet loss, but that is an optimization not a correctness fix. Cool. rick jones |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH/RFC] Reduce call chain length in netfilter, Patrick McHardy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Memory leak in 2.6.11-rc1?, Phil Oester |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | [patch 1/3] net/ibmtr: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()/msleep_interruptible(), domen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |