| To: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN) |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:45:04 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20010131133123.A7875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3A76B72D.2DD3E640@xxxxxxxxxx> <3A728475.34CF841@xxxxxxxxxx> <3A726087.764CC02E@xxxxxxxxxx> <20010126222003.A11994@xxxxxxxxxxx> <14966.22671.446439.838872@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14966.47384.971741.939842@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3A76D6A4.2385185E@xxxxxxxxxx> <20010131064911.B7244@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <14967.15765.553667.802101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010131133123.A7875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Chris Wedgwood writes: > There are ... <pause> ... 3 switches between four switches in > between, mostly linked via GE. I'm not sure if latency might be an > issue here, is it was critical I can imagine 10 km of glass might be > a problem but it's not _that_ far... Other than this, I don't know what to postulate. Really, most reports and my own experimentation (directly connected Linux knfsd to 2.4.x nfs client) supports the fact that our client can saturate 100baseT rather fully. Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | packet (ppp) over Sonet in Linux, Ben Greear |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), Chris Wedgwood |
| Next by Thread: | Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to do with ECN), kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |