| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Prism54-devel] Re: TxDescriptors -> 1024 default. Please not for every NIC! |
| From: | Tomasz Torcz <zdzichu@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 20 May 2004 18:45:16 +0200 |
| In-reply-to: | <20040520163811.GA15832@bougret.hpl.hp.com> |
| References: | <OF72607111.CD0234C8-ON85256DA1.0068861B-86256DA1.0068FF60@us.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405151354220.9894@fcat> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405190256010.30653@fcat> <20040519102700.GA16465@ee.oulu.fi> <20040520141111.GR13898@ruslug.rutgers.edu> <20040520163811.GA15832@bougret.hpl.hp.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:38:11AM -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > I personally would stick with 100. The IrDA stack runs > perfectly fine with 15 buffers at 4 Mb/s. If 100 is not enough, I > think the problem is not the number of buffers, but somewhere else. I don't know how much trollish or true is that comment: http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=106258&cid=9049422 but it suggest, that Linux' stack having no BSD like mbuf functionality, is not perfect for fast transmission. Maybe some network guru cna comment ? -- Tomasz Torcz ,,(...) today's high-end is tomorrow's embedded processor.'' zdzichu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Mitchell Blank on LKML |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Prism54-devel] Re: TxDescriptors -> 1024 default. Please not for every NIC!, Jean Tourrilhes |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | icmpv6_send filling the logs, Tom Marshall |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Prism54-devel] Re: TxDescriptors -> 1024 default. Please not for every NIC!, Jean Tourrilhes |
| Next by Thread: | zero copy TX in benchmarks was Re: [Prism54-devel] Re: TxDescriptors -> 1024 default. Please not for every NIC!, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |