| To: | Donald Becker <becker@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1 |
| From: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:57:11 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211061458310.13934-100000@beohost.scyld.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Donald Becker wrote: > I can see that changing the parameters is a quick, ad hoc solution. > This list should focus on identifying the problems, rather than just > patching in work-arounds. > Well said. Tuning the receive ring is still a mystery; what i have noticed is that depending on the number of NICs on the system, the most optimal value varies. Typically, extremely large or small values are bad. cheers, jamal |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1, jamal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1, Ben Greear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: NAPI-ized tulip patch against 2.4.20-rc1, Robert Olsson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |