netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: netif_rx packet dumping

To: John Heffner <jheffner@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: netif_rx packet dumping
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 03 Mar 2005 17:26:51 -0500
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rhee@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Yee-Ting.Li@xxxxxxx, baruch@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503031657300.22311@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <20050303123811.4d934249@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050303125556.6850cfe5.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1109884688.1090.282.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050303132143.7eef517c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1109885065.1098.285.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050303133237.5d64578f.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050303135416.0d6e7708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503031657300.22311@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 17:02, John Heffner wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Maybe a simple Random Exponential Drop (RED) would be more friendly.
> 
> That would probably not be appropriate.  This queue is only for absorbing
> micro-scale bursts.  It should not hold any data in steady state like a
> router queue can.  The receive window can handle the macro scale flow
> control.

recall this is a queue that is potentially shared by many many flows
from potentially many many interfaces i.e it deals with many many
micro-scale bursts.
Clearly, the best approach is to have lots and lots of memmory and to
make that queue real huge so it can cope with all of them all the time.
We dont have that luxury - If you restrict the queue size, you will have
to drop packets... Which ones?
Probably simplest solution is to leave it as is right now and just
adjust the contraints based on your system memmory etc.

cheers,
jamal


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