netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: patch for common networking error messages

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.

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