| To: | ltd@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 13 Jun 2003 23:08:50 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | anton@xxxxxxxxx, haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx, hdierks@xxxxxxxxxx, scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx, dwg@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, milliner@xxxxxxxxxx, ricardoz@xxxxxxxxxx, twichell@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <5.1.0.14.2.20030614154954.026b4768@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> |
| References: | <5.1.0.14.2.20030614114755.036abbb0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> <20030613.224122.104034261.davem@redhat.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030614154954.026b4768@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Lincoln Dale <ltd@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 15:52:35 +1000 can we have the TCP retransmit side take a performance hit if it needs to realign buffers? You don't understand, the person who mangles the packet must make the copy, not the person not doing the packet modifications. for a "high performance app" requiring gigabit-type speeds, ...we probably won't be using ppc64 and e1000 cards, yes, I agree :-) Anton, go to the local computer store and pick up some tg3 cards or a bunch of Taiwan specials :-) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Lincoln Dale |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), Lincoln Dale |
| Next by Thread: | Re: e1000 performance hack for ppc64 (Power4), David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |