|Subject:||Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?|
|From:||rick jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:58:54 -0800|
|References:||<41F1516D.5010101@xxxxxx> <200501211358.53783.jdmason@xxxxxxxxxx> <41F163AD.5070400@xxxxxx> <20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F17B7E.2020002@xxxxxx> <20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <41F186A8.9030805@xxxxxx> <41F18927.5020607@xxxxxx> <20050121204418.2070d76d.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
On Jan 21, 2005, at 8:44 PM, David S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:58:47 -0800 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> wrote:Speaking of divisor values... is zero (0) supposed to be a legal value? The sysctl seems to allow it but it does seem to behave a triffle strangely. Theinitial TSO size appeared to be 2MSS.The value "0" behaves the same as "1".
Alas I'm away from my traces at the moment, but I do recall seeing different behaviour with 0 than with one - with one the TSO sends started at 3*1448, with the divisor at zero they started at what appeared to be 2*1448.
I'll see if I can get to the traces before monday and send them along. rick jones there is no rest for the wicked, yet the virtuous have no pillows
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Acer Aspire 1524WLMi and RealTek 8169 - very slow, Richard Dawe|
|Next by Date:||Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, rick jones|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, David S. Miller|
|Next by Thread:||Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?, David S. Miller|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|