On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 08:48 -0500, Bill Auerbach wrote: > >The above two settings are much too small to expect decent throughput, > >and almost certainly explain the poor performance in the 2048-byte-write > >capture you sent. You can probably get away with leaving TCP_WND alone > >if you're acting purely as a sender of packets, but TCP_SND_BUF should > >be as large as you can make it. > > Kieran, can the PBUF_POOL_SIZE 6 also be a problem?
Yes, especially once the TCP_SND_BUF is made larger. Kieran _______________________________________________ lwip-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
