| To: | John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: The ultimate TOE design |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:46:24 -0700 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.NEB.4.33.0409151704200.5383-100000@dexter.psc.edu> |
| References: | <4148991B.9050200@pobox.com> <Pine.NEB.4.33.0409151704200.5383-100000@dexter.psc.edu> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:36:18 -0400 (EDT) John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> wrote: > The other (much nicer) solution to case (b) is to just USE A BIGGER MTU. > 1500 bytes is ridiculously small. Even with a 9k MTU, the benefits of TOE > or TSO are nearly vanishing. Those who say they require high performance, > but are unwilling to buy or produce networking gear with an MTU larger > than 1500 bytes probably deserve what they get. TSO gives a kind of virtual 64K MTU, FWIW. But I do see your point. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [SUNGEM] LLTX support, Eric Lemoine |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: The ultimate TOE design, Tony Lee |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: The ultimate TOE design, John Heffner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: The ultimate TOE design, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |