| To: | janiceg@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: patch for common networking error messages |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:50:40 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx, girouard@xxxxxxxxxx, stekloff@xxxxxxxxxx, lkessler@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, niv@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3EEF7030.6030303@us.ibm.com> |
| References: | <3EEF66AA.3000509@us.ibm.com> <3EEF6A9D.6050303@pobox.com> <3EEF7030.6030303@us.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Janice M Girouard <janiceg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:46:56 -0500
I could see the buffers backing up for 10/100 cards. So that case
favors your point. I'm still thinking that it's a sign someone should
be buying a 2nd card and ramping up their network capability. But I can
see your point.
And when we have 1GHZ memory busses and 10GHz cpus tomorrow,
what does this say for 1gbit and 10gbit cards?
You want to define a machine as having too much "work" or not, yet you
only want to consider one metric to do so. Such schemes are
fundamentally flawed.
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: patch for common networking error messages, Janice M Girouard |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IPSec: Policy dst bundles exhausting storage, Tom Lendacky |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: patch for common networking error messages, Janice M Girouard |
| Next by Thread: | Re: patch for common networking error messages, Janice M Girouard |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |