Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*The\s+ultimate\s+TOE\s+design\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*The\s+ultimate\s+TOE\s+design\s*$/: 140 ]

Total 140 documents matching your query.

81. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:53:08 -0700; ROFL, and this is my position on this topic as well. TOE is just junk, and we'll reject any attempt to put that garbage into the kernel.; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02032.html (10,671 bytes)
82. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:01:23 -0700; We shouldn't be forced to refine people's non-sensible ideas which we'll not support anyways. If TOE is supported on Windows only, I happily welcome that.; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02033.html (9,486 bytes)
83. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:08:18 -0400; I just described a design that -we already support-. It's generic scalable model that has application outside the acronym "TOE". Did you read my message, or just see 'TOE' and nothing else? Sun used; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02034.html (10,410 bytes)
84. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: David Lang <david.lang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:10:03 -0700 (PDT); On Mer, 2004-09-15 at 21:04, Paul Jakma wrote: The intel IXP's are like the above, XScale+extra-bits host-on-a-PCI card running Linux. Or is that what you were referring to with "<cards exist> but t; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02035.html (11,536 bytes)
85. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Wes Felter <wesley@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:03:57 -0500; Put simply, the "ultimate TOE card" would be a card with network ports, a generic CPU (arm, mips, whatever.), some RAM, and some flash. This card's "firmware" is the Linux kernel, configured to run a; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02036.html (12,170 bytes)
86. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:15:43 -0400; Do you need a 5-10 Ghz Intel server to handle 10 Gbps ethernet? Jeff; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02037.html (9,970 bytes)
87. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:13:46 -0700; And we already support that :-) Plus we have things like TSO too but that doesn't require a full Linux instance to realize on a networking port. Simple silicon implements this already. I don't see ho; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02038.html (10,176 bytes)
88. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Michael Richardson <mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:15:10 -0400; David> We shouldn't be forced to refine people's non-sensible ideas which David> we'll not support anyways. David> If TOE is supported on Windows only, I happily welcome that. Ha. Too hard to do :-); /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02039.html (12,113 bytes)
89. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:23:49 -0400; There's nothing inherently wrong with sticking a computer running Linux inside another computer ;-) And we already support that :-) Plus we have things like TSO too but that doesn't require a full L; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02040.html (11,593 bytes)
90. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: "Imran Badr" <imran.badr@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:25:51 -0700; Please see: Cavium Networks Introduces OCTEON(TM) Family of Integrated Network Services Processors With up to 16 MIPS64(R)-Based Cores for Internet Services, Content and Security Processing" http://w; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02041.html (12,364 bytes)
91. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:29:26 -0700; I think a better goal is "offload 90+% of the net stack cost" which is effectively what TSO does on the send side. This is why these discussions are so circular. If we want to discuss something speci; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02042.html (10,809 bytes)
92. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Wes Felter <wesley@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:35:31 -0500; To do 10 Gbps Ethernet with Jeff's approach, wouldn't you need a 5-10 GHz processor on the card? Sounds expensive. Do you need a 5-10 Ghz Intel server to handle 10 Gbps ethernet? Yes. (Or a 4-way ~2G; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02043.html (10,868 bytes)
93. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:36:00 -0700; On Sep 15 2004, at 21:04, Paul Jakma was caught saying: Unfortunately all the SW that lets one make use of the interesting features of the IXPs (microEngines, crypto, etc) is a pile of propietary cod; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02044.html (11,582 bytes)
94. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:36:18 -0400 (EDT); My view on TOE is that it is brought up in response to the fact that when leading edge network technologies are brought out (GigE a few years ago, 10 GigE now), hosts can't keep up. Specifically, the; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02045.html (10,369 bytes)
95. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:41:05 -0700 (PDT); I've never understood why people are so interested in off-loading networking. Isn't that just a multi-processor system where you can't use any of the network processor cycles for anything else? And,; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02046.html (12,723 bytes)
96. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:42:57 -0400; It was a rhetoric question. No, you don't. Jeff; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02047.html (10,584 bytes)
97. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:46:24 -0700; TSO gives a kind of virtual 64K MTU, FWIW. But I do see your point.; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02049.html (10,008 bytes)
98. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Tony Lee <tony.p.lee@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:59:03 -0700; I believe Broadcom 5704 (570x) chip/nic card come with 2 MIPS CPUs (133 MHz) one each for both Tx and Rx data path. The GIGE nic card cost < $50 couple years ago. Too bad, the software SDK for them i; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02050.html (11,865 bytes)
99. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:26:42 -0400; The typical definition of TOE is "offload 90+% of the net stack", as opposed to "TCP assist", which is stuff like TSO. I think a better goal is "offload 90+% of the net stack cost" which is effective; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02052.html (11,898 bytes)
100. Re: The ultimate TOE design (score: 1): Author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:31:12 -0400; David S. Miller wrote: Plus we have things like TSO too but that doesn't require a full Linux instance to realize on a networking port. Simple silicon implements this already. I don't see how that di; /archives/netdev/2004-09/msg02053.html (11,210 bytes)

Current List: 81 - 100
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]