Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TCP\-Protection\s+is\s+really\s+a\s+pain\.\.\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*TCP\-Protection\s+is\s+really\s+a\s+pain\.\.\.\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:07:30 +0100; Your new dynamically adjusted socket-buffer in 2.6.10 is really a pain for big servers. PLEASE tell me a way how to disable it. Thank you. Best regards, Christian Schmid; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00073.html (8,065 bytes)
2. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:54:37 -0800; sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_wmem="4096 8192 16384" Your single stream will be slower, but the memory footprint will be smaller.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00074.html (8,716 bytes)
3. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:21:46 +0100; Actually, thats my problem. Single streams are too slow! Before I had buffers up to 500 KB. This was very nice to CPU because I only needed to "push" more data once in 5 seconds. I am doing this ever; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00075.html (10,207 bytes)
4. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:50:45 -0500; Christian Schmid wrote: btw: Another problem I am experiencing is that downloads suddenly break in speed from 360 kb/sec to 8-12 kb/sec. 5 seconds later they stall completely. But the interesting par; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00076.html (9,731 bytes)
5. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:04:24 +0100; Several users complain about downloads stalling at 99% as well... I was unable to solve this issue. Jeff Garzik wrote: Christian Schmid wrote: btw: Another problem I am experiencing is that downloads; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00084.html (10,171 bytes)
6. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:33:35 -0800; Are you using a board that support TCP Segmentation Offload. The problem may well be that before we were not doing congestion control properly with TSO. A pre-2.6.8 host with TSO was violating all so; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00090.html (10,132 bytes)
7. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:58:48 +0100; Hm how can I check that? and what do you mean with "board"? Mainboard? NIC? its an onboard-nic on this mainboard: http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/E7501/X5DP8-G2.cfm The worst thin; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00092.html (11,123 bytes)
8. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:15:03 -0800; E1000 support TSO. To check if it is enabled do: ethtool -k eth0 To turn it off use. ethtool -K eth0 tso off You get the idea.. -- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00095.html (9,273 bytes)
9. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 21:19:19 +0100; Offload parameters for eth0: tx-checksumming: on scatter-gather: on tcp segmentation offload: on What exactly is tcp segmentation offload? Where can I read more about it? Should I disable it or is th; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00096.html (9,899 bytes)
10. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:47:14 -0800; Christian Schmid wrote: Offload parameters for eth0: rx-checksumming: on tx-checksumming: on scatter-gather: on tcp segmentation offload: on What exactly is tcp segmentation offload? TCP Segmentation; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00099.html (12,205 bytes)
11. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:13:26 -0500; Christian Schmid wrote: What exactly is tcp segmentation offload? Where can I read more about it? Should I disable it or is this not a good idea? It's an optimization designed to reduce CPU usage for; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00102.html (9,869 bytes)
12. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:29:10 +0100; I turned it off and without it, I was unable to reproduce any stalls anymore. Jeff Garzik wrote: Christian Schmid wrote: What exactly is tcp segmentation offload? Where can I read more about it? Shou; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg00104.html (10,276 bytes)
13. TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:07:30 +0100; Hi. Your new dynamically adjusted socket-buffer in 2.6.10 is really a pain for big servers. PLEASE tell me a way how to disable it. Thank you. Best regards, Christian Schmid; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01093.html (8,027 bytes)
14. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:54:37 -0800; sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_wmem="4096 8192 16384" Your single stream will be slower, but the memory footprint will be smaller.; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01094.html (8,764 bytes)
15. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 06:21:46 +0100; Actually, thats my problem. Single streams are too slow! Before I had buffers up to 500 KB. This was very nice to CPU because I only needed to "push" more data once in 5 seconds. I am doing this ever; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01095.html (10,344 bytes)
16. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:50:45 -0500; Christian Schmid wrote: btw: Another problem I am experiencing is that downloads suddenly break in speed from 360 kb/sec to 8-12 kb/sec. 5 seconds later they stall completely. But the interesting par; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01096.html (9,831 bytes)
17. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:04:24 +0100; Several users complain about downloads stalling at 99% as well... I was unable to solve this issue. btw: Another problem I am experiencing is that downloads suddenly break in speed from 360 kb/sec to; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01104.html (10,289 bytes)
18. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:33:35 -0800; Are you using a board that support TCP Segmentation Offload. The problem may well be that before we were not doing congestion control properly with TSO. A pre-2.6.8 host with TSO was violating all so; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01110.html (10,235 bytes)
19. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Christian Schmid <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:58:48 +0100; Hm how can I check that? and what do you mean with "board"? Mainboard? NIC? its an onboard-nic on this mainboard: http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/E7501/X5DP8-G2.cfm The worst thin; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01112.html (11,369 bytes)
20. Re: TCP-Protection is really a pain... (score: 1): Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:15:03 -0800; E1000 support TSO. To check if it is enabled do: ethtool -k eth0 To turn it off use. ethtool -K eth0 tso off You get the idea.. -- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; /archives/netdev/2005-02/msg01115.html (9,431 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]