| To: | John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: The ultimate TOE design |
| From: | James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:16:16 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | Netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.NEB.4.33.0409151704200.5383-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, John Heffner wrote: > The other (much nicer) solution to case (b) is to just USE A BIGGER MTU. > 1500 bytes is ridiculously small. Even with a 9k MTU, the benefits of TOE > or TSO are nearly vanishing. Do you have any figures on (large) MTU size vs performance on a current commidity system? - James -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.9-rc1-bk11+ and 2.6.9-rc1-mm3,4 r8169: freeze during boot (FIX included), Francois Romieu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] linux 2.6.x.x - include/net/neighbour.h spell-check, Randy.Dunlap |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: The ultimate TOE design, Leonid Grossman |
| Next by Thread: | RE: The ultimate TOE design, Leonid Grossman |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |