netdev - Re: Latency difference between fifo and pfifo

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111207154907.462846cb@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date:	Wed, 7 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	"John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@...nsourcedevel.com>
Cc:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>,
	Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Latency difference between fifo and pfifo_fast

=
> > Is this a shared network? TOS won't matter if it is only your
> > traffic.
> > 
> > There are number of route metrics that you can tweak to that can
> > reduce TCP slow
> > start effects, like increasing the initial cwnd, etc.
> > 
> It is a private network dedicated only to SAN traffic - a couple of SAN devices and some virtualization hosts - John

Therefore unless your switch is shared, playing with queueing and TOS
won't help reduce absolute latency.
You maybe able to prioritize one host or SAN over another though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html