Francesco DiMambro wrote: > The performance is line rate, with the Linux as a link partner, the > difference is > in the utilization, MDT is better by about 8%, not much really, but like Are you using GLDv2 or GLDv3? GLDv2 has MDT support only, while GLDv3 has LSO support only.
> The Soft LSO allows one call to the driver per message, and > eliminates the per > packet traversal of the stack, which is good, but is merely a bit of > what MDT provides, Soft LSO still does is per packet DMA mapping/syncing > which MDT has reduced to once per header buffer, and once for data buffer, > covering as many packets as the stack can give in one call then the > setup of the > packets is in a tight loop, just filling in descriptors. SOFT LSO can do single DMA mapping for the whole packet as MDT does today, even though the SOFT LSO in nxge has not done that. We wondered whether to introduce such complexity because most NICs will support hardware LSO, and the SOFT LSO done in nxge is good enough for its performance goal. When comparing SOFT LSO to MDT, we can take all advantage of single DMA mapping and single call stack, while we have simpler logic in the stack and the data path. I believe that the LSO performance will be better than MDT when we're ready to EOL it. Thanks, Roamer -- # telnet (650)-786-6759 (x86759) Connected to Solaris.Sun.COM. login: Lu, Yunsong Last login: January 2, 2007 from beyond.sfbay [EMAIL PROTECTED] v1.04 Since Mon Dec. 22, 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Networking]# cd .. _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
