On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 10:56:09AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 22:08:55 +0100 > Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > I don't know if you received my mail since I got no reply. > > > > Thanks in advance for your comments, > > Willy > > > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 10:57:07PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > > > In my own kernels, I've added your backport of SKGE to 2.4 that I found > > > here : > > > > > > > > > http://developer.osdl.org/shemminger/releases/skge-sky2-backport.tar.bz2 > > > > > > It seems to work pretty well compared to the original syskonnect driver > > > (up to and including 8.36). Several people around me have reported very > > > slow NFS operations with the official driver, which I finally attributed > > > to a strange effect of UDP packets not going out after a while until they > > > get "pushed" by a TCP packet. I even noticed the problem at the company > > > and we turned the NFS server to an unused 100 Mbps card to workaround the > > > problem before being able to fully ananlyze the problem. > > > > > > It seems your driver is getting mature and its performance is very close > > > to > > > the official one, while its code is smaller and apparently more reliable. > > > I > > > was thinking about merging it in mainline 2.4 as a fix for people having > > > trouble with the syskonnect driver. It might also be easier to backport > > > fixes > > > from 2.6 to 2.4 when the driver is the same. > > > > > > I don't think we risk any regression because it won't replace an existing > > > driver, but will provide one to people who are used to download new > > > versions > > > from an external tree. > > > > > > Also, I'm not yet sure whether I would also backport the sky2 driver, > > > because > > > I know about a handful boxes running in production with the official one > > > with > > > 88E8053 chips at high packet rates with no trouble at all. Anyway, as > > > long as > > > the backport does not prevent them from using the external driver, there > > > should be no problem. > > > > > > I'd like to get your opinion on this matter, and of course, Jeff's and > > > Davem's. > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > Willy > > > > > > The backport needs to be updated. It is of older code. I plan to do a new > backport this week. The backport version doesn't use NAPI, because of issues > with not wanting to change netdevice.h. For a good 2.4 version, I would > make a version that was closer to 2.6 code (using NAPI).
That would be perfect, it would make backport of fixes even easier. I have turned last version into a patch against 2.4.33 for in-tree inclusion, so if you're interested in getting it for the Config.in, Makefiles and Configure.help, do not hesitate. > I did the backport because one of the equipment donors gave a VPN box whose > base OS is RHEL based on 2.4. It's amazing how having the hardware stimulates development, isn't it? :-) Tbanks, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
