| To: | David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Fragment ID wrap workaround (read-only, untested). |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:02:49 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, rusty@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <OF6D39F992.163676EB-ON88256ED2.005AF110-88256ED2.005CC82F@us.ibm.com> |
| References: | <20040715182735.3787c8b1.ak@suse.de> <OF6D39F992.163676EB-ON88256ED2.005AF110-88256ED2.005CC82F@us.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:54:53 -0700 David Stevens <dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I agree that NFS over UDP should be dead as soon as possible, > and fragmentation in general not far behind it. They aren't quite > dead yet; until they are, why not make them better behaved? And > if your argument is that it isn't worth fixing because it isn't I wouldn't go that far, just make extremly sure that any solution works on slow links too. The problem I see is that if you make the delay factor long enough to make the extremly variable links not regress you risk making the wrap on very fast links likely again. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Fragment ID wrap workaround (read-only, untested)., Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [2.6 patch] net/ipv6/route.c: fix inline compile error, Adrian Bunk |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Fragment ID wrap workaround (read-only, untested)., David Stevens |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Fragment ID wrap workaround (read-only, untested)., John Heffner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |