| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem |
| From: | Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 23 Apr 2005 19:14:38 +0200 |
| Cc: | Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, gnb@xxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxx, akepner@xxxxxxx, jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050422164301.724343f6.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <C925F8B43D79CC49ACD0601FB68FF50C03A633C7@orsmsx408> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504180943290.15052@xxxxxxxxxx> <1113855967.7436.39.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050419055535.GA12211@xxxxxxx> <m1hdhzyrdz.fsf@xxxxxx> <1114173195.7679.30.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050422172108.GA10598@xxxxxx> <1114193902.7978.39.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050422232831.GB6462@xxxxxxx> <20050423094038.72a8da73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050422164301.724343f6.davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
David S. Miller writes:
> With the dynamic schemes comes a new issue, how quickly to respond
> to changes in traffic patterns.
So true... spoiled months with this to trying to find acceptable
mitigation settings for all rates and for all packet sizes.
Yes minimal mitigation settings with NAPI is probably the best way
to go.
Cheers.
--ro
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem, Robert Olsson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Problem with IPSEC tunnel mode, jamal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem, jamal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem, Robert Olsson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |