| To: | jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:14:35 +0100 (CET) |
| Cc: | Ion Badulescu <ionut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101302000471.3017-100000@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Reply-to: | <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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?
Ingo
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to dowith ECN), Rick Jones |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |