[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090204.010146.18100191.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:01:46 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc: w@....eu, zbr@...emap.net, jarkao2@...il.com, dada1@...mosbay.com,
ben@...s.com, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:59:07 +1100
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 09:54:32AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> > My server is running 2.4 :-), but I observed the same issues with older
> > 2.6 as well. I can certainly imagine that things have changed a lot since,
> > but the initial point remains : jumbo frames are expensive to deal with,
> > and with recent NICs and drivers, we might get close performance for
> > little additional cost. After all, initial justification for jumbo frames
> > was the devastating interrupt rate and all NICs coalesce interrupts now.
>
> This is total crap! Jumbo frames are way better than any of the
> hacks (such as GSO) that people have come up with to get around it.
> The only reason we are not using it as much is because of this
> nasty thing called the Internet.
Completely agreed.
If Jumbo frames are slower, it is NOT some fundamental issue. It is
rather due to some misdesign of the hardware or it's driver.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists