| To: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device |
| From: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:49:22 -0800 |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, christoph@xxxxxxxxxx, nirajk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, christoph@xxxxxxxxxxx, Shai@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <42378A8D.7090801@us.ibm.com> |
| References: | <200503152222.j2FMMbhG016805@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <423764A3.8030201@pobox.com> <20050315150809.579c5e85.akpm@osdl.org> <20050315165345.735573de.davem@davemloft.net> <42378617.3080600@hp.com> <42378A8D.7090801@us.ibm.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040304 |
Nivedita Singhvi wrote:
Rick Jones wrote: I suspect the idea is that if loopback on Platform A is faster than loopback on Platform B, then over the network will be faster (or at least more efficient) on Platform A than it is on Platform B. It is indeed fraught with numerous pitfalls - different MTU's, shorticircuting at different places etc etc. I do not claim to condone (even if I'm sometimes forced into that situation myself :( ) merely to explain. As for the 512 CPU machine mentioned in another message, at the rate cores per die may increase over the next few years, that may not really be all that large a box... :) rick jones |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device, Nivedita Singhvi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Where is Margit Schubert-While?, Luis R. Rodriguez |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [patch 05/13] remove last_rx update from loopback device, Nivedita Singhvi |
| Next by Thread: | [patch 10/13] drivers/net/sis900.c: fix a warning, akpm |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |