| To: | greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:55:55 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cacophonix@xxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3D860246.3060609@candelatech.com> |
| References: | <20020913222213.69396.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> <3D85DB3D.DC65A80B@nortelnetworks.com> <3D860246.3060609@candelatech.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:09:42 -0700 NAPI helps my problem, but does not make it go away entirely. There is a lot of logic in our TCP input btw that notices packet reordering on the receive side and acts accordingly (ie. it does not fire off fast retransmits or backoff prematurely when reordering is detected) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Early SPECWeb99 results on 2.5.33 with TSO on e1000, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Yan-Fa Li |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: bonding vs 802.3ad/Cisco EtherChannel link agregation, Chris Friesen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |