On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:44:39AM -0700, Stephen Poole wrote: > Remember, even Ethernet finally decided to go to Jumbo > Frames, why, system impact and more.
I think jumbo frames was proposed because it was easier to implement than TCP segmentation offloading. The result is effectively the same by reducing the per message overhead. Jumbo frames also required the switches support 9K frames and my understanding is few do. And having a 2G upper limit on the message size seems far in excess of where system load would matter. Today, with mass storage, the "sweet spot" in transfer size is ~256KB. I.e. bigger sizes don't measurable reduce the system overhead. I expect IB to see similar results - possibly with even smaller message sizes. grant _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
