[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit)

To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 1.03Mpps on e1000 (was: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit)
From: Martin Josefsson <gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:54:07 +0100 (CET)
Cc: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@xxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mellia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, e1000-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jorge Manuel Finochietto <jorge.finochietto@xxxxxxxxx>, Giulio Galante <galante@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041205175133.GK647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1101824754.1044.126.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041201001107.GE4203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1101863399.4663.54.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041201182943.GA14470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041201213550.GF14470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1101967983.4782.9.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041205145051.GA647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0412051559350.29474@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0412051638290.29474@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041205174401.GJ647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041205175133.GK647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:

> I've tested all packet sizes now, and delayed TDT updating once per jiffy
> (instead of once per packet) indeed gives about 25kpps more on 60,61,62
> byte packets, and is hardly worth it for bigger packets.

Maybe we can't see any real gains here now, I wonder if it has any effect
if you have lots of nics on the same bus. I mean, in theory it saves a
whole lot of traffic on the bus.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>