| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes? |
| From: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:58:47 -0800 |
| In-reply-to: | <41F186A8.9030805@hp.com> |
| References: | <41F1516D.5010101@hp.com> <200501211358.53783.jdmason@us.ibm.com> <41F163AD.5070400@hp.com> <20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@davemloft.net> <41F17B7E.2020002@hp.com> <20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@davemloft.net> <41F186A8.9030805@hp.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041206 |
Rick Jones wrote:
That's not to say that we still won't have incentive to set tcp_tso_win_divisor (shouldn't that really be tcp_tso_cwnd_divisor?) to 1 :) Speaking of divisor values... is zero (0) supposed to be a legal value? The sysctl seems to allow it but it does seem to behave a triffle strangely. The initial TSO size appeared to be 2MSS. It might be rather interesting if a value of zero were to have the effect of ignoring initial cwnd entirely :) It wouldn't be "legal" in the RFC sense, but I suspect it would make for some interesting experimental opportunities. Rather far down on the list though. rick jones |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC 2.6.10 4/22] xfrm: Try to offload inbound xfrm_states, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [RFT] skge: new syskonnect gigabit ethernet driver (0.4), Stephen Hemminger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, Rick Jones |
| Next by Thread: | Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |