Re: TOE brain dump

[ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman)]

"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:24:33 -0300
> Werner Almesberger <werner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > There is one place in low latency communications that I can think
> > > of where TCP/IP is not the proper solution.  For low latency
> > > communication the checksum is at the wrong end of the packet.
> > 
> > That's one of the few things ATM's AAL5 got right.
> 
> Let's recall how long the IFF_TRAILERS hack from BSD :-)

Putting the variable length headers on the end of a packet?  Or
was that something other than RFC893?

I think IPv6 solves that much more cleanly by simply deleting them.

> > But in the end, I think it doesn't really matter.
> 
> I tend to agree on this one.
> 
> And on the transmit side if you have more than 1 pending TX frame, you
> can always be prefetching the next one into the fifo so that by the
> time the medium is ready all the checksum bits have been done.

For large data transmissions that happens.
 
> In fact I'd be surprised if current generation 1g/10g cards are not
> doing something like this.

Well at this point before I propose anything concrete I suspect I need
to profile some actual application and see how things go.  But from a
very latency sensitive perspective, I would be surprised if the
problem goes away with faster technology.

For now I am happy just to insert the peculiar thought that latency
across the entire cluster/lan is of great importance to some
applications.

Eric