On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 03:59:20PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

> 
> > On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <s...@zxy.spb.ru> wrote:
> > 
> > This is because RTT of this link for jumbo frames higher 1500 bytes
> > frame for store-and-forward switch chain.
> 
> For TCP, RTT isn't really a factor (in this scenario),

I am don't see scenario in first message. For may scenario this is
limiting factor

> as the windowing and congestion avoidance algorithms will adapt to the actual 
> bandwidth-delay product of the link, and the delays in each direction will be 
> symmetrical.
> 
> Now the ack for a single 9000 octet packet will take longer than
> that for a 1500 octet one, but that's because you're sending six
> times as many octets before the ACK can be generated.  The time to
> send six 1500 octet packets and receive the ACK from sixth packet is
> going to be comparable to that of receiving the ack from a single
> 9000 octet packet.  It's simple arithmetic to calculate the extra
> protocol header overhead for 6x1500 vs 1x9000.

Time to send send six 1500 octet packets significant less then for
send one 9000 octet packet over multiple switch:

H1-[S1]-[S2]-[S3]-H2

Sendig single 1500 octet packet from H1 to S1 over 1Gbit link:

(1500+14+4+12+8)*8/10^9 = 12us
switch delayed for 3us

same for s1-s2, s2-s3, s3-h2.

2'nd packet delayed for 12us. 3..6 -- same.
Sending all six packets (5 inter packets over 4 hop):
(12+3)*4 + 12*5 = 120us.

Sending single 9000 octet packet from H1 to S1 over 1Gbit link:
(9000+14+4+12+8)*8/10^9 = 72us
switch delayed for 3us

Sending single 9000 octet packet over 4 hop: (72+3)*4 = 300us.

300/120 = 2.5 time slower

> If there *is* a significant difference (beyond the extra protocol header 
> overhead), it's time to take a very close look at the NICs you are using in 
> the end hosts.  A statistically significant difference would hint at poor 
> interrupt handling performance on the part of one or more of the NICs and 
> their associated device drivers.
> 
> The intermediate switch overhead will be a constant (unless the switch 
> backplane becomes saturated from unrelated traffic).

You lost serelisation time.

_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to