Derrick J Brashear wrote: >Did you have jumbograms enabled? If you disable them, but leave the mtu at >9000, are things better? I bet they are.
Derick wrote that things get better when jumbograms are _dis_abled, did he? Rainer wrote: > is it naive to consider that if RX only works efficiently with > jumbograms enabled, than there is something wrong with the > implementation? Or did you mean the other way around or something else? > What would it be that makes packet fragmentation and > reassembly so immensely more efficient compared with RX packet > handling? Why can TCP fill up a GigE leisurely and RX just gets about > half of it sweating a complete CPU? Ehm, we have to be careful not to confuse RX_MAX_FRAGS with jumbograms. Could please everyone reporting performance numbers include MTU size, RX packet size and what's in each RX packet? I'd vote for a patch that sets RX-size < min( MTU(sender), MTU(receiver)). because I only have seen grief about dropped fragments and I don't see any performance gains from RX-size > MTU with todays hardware. Harald. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
