| To: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:39:42 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | Ion Badulescu <ionut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101310213400.13467-100000@elte.hu> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, jamal wrote: > > > > - is this UDP or TCP based? (UDP i guess) > > > > > TCP > > well then i'd suggest to do: > > echo 100000 100000 100000 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_wmem > > does this make any difference? According to my notes, i dont see this. however, 262144 into /proc/sys/net/core/*mem_max/default. I have access to my h/ware this weekend. Hopefully i should get something better than ttcp to use. cheers, jamal |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Ingo Molnar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to dowith ECN), jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Ingo Molnar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Malcolm Beattie |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |