On 2015-05-03 11:17, Alkis Georgopoulos wrote:
> We've updated our script that disables flow control, and it now works
> for all the NICs that we could test with.
>
> So, LTSP installations that have:
> * Server <=> switch connection = 1000 Mbps
> * Clients <=> switch connection = 100 Mbps
>
We've updated our script that disables flow control, and it now works
for all the NICs that we could test with.
So, LTSP installations that have:
* Server = switch connection = 1000 Mbps
* Clients = switch connection = 100 Mbps
(either because of the switch or because of the clients)
*
On 2014-01-05 11:20, Ben Green wrote:
Quoting Luis A. Guzmán García a...@switnet.org:
So, bottom line.
On a healthy LTSP network the data flow should be controlled/limited
so
it can perform better, taking advantage of the TPC/IP avoiding the
buffer jamming on the switch, server or
Quoting Luis A. Guzmán García a...@switnet.org:
So, bottom line.
On a healthy LTSP network the data flow should be controlled/limited so
it can perform better, taking advantage of the TPC/IP avoiding the
buffer jamming on the switch, server or clients.
Right?
Yep. Providing an easy way
Alkis Georgopoulos alk...@gmail.com wrote:
Στις 04/01/2014 01:36 πμ, ο/η rkwesk_ltsp έγραψε:
Or are you saying that when the disabling of hardware flow control is
not an option then one should limit the rate of the data?
Yup.
So,
Bottom line.
On a healty LTSP network is always preffered
El sáb, 04-01-2014 a las 08:14 +0200, Alkis Georgopoulos escribió:
Στις 04/01/2014 01:36 πμ, ο/η rkwesk_ltsp έγραψε:
Or are you saying that when the disabling of hardware flow control is
not an option then one should limit the rate of the data?
Yup.
So, bottom line.
On a healthy LTSP
On 03.01.2014 12:24, E Kogler wrote:
My option would be to force the gigabitport to 100MBit :-)
Edgar
The issue here is that the buffer on the switch fills from data from
its giga port
while data is more slowly released through its 100 Mbps ports. What is
hoped is that
with flow control
On 29.12.2013 01:21, rkwesk_ltsp wrote:
As the switch's port to the client is also 100 Mps I think the client's
100mps nic cannot be overloaded
per se. However, a fellow member of this list, alkisg, has since
explained to me that the buffer on the
switch will fill up since it is receiving
I thought I had this figured out but I'd like to confirm:
Configuration 1
unmanaged switch w 1 giga port and 16 100 ports not connected directly
w router
Server with two nics, one gigabit to giga port on switch and one 100
bit to router directly.
Clients, mixed thin and fat but all with 100
On 28.12.2013 12:18, rkwesk_ltsp wrote:
I thought I had this figured out but I'd like to confirm:
Configuration 1
unmanaged switch w 1 giga port and 16 100 ports not connected directly
w router
Server with two nics, one gigabit to giga port on switch and one 100
bit to router directly.
On 2013-12-28 22:18, Jakob Unterwurzacher wrote:
On 28.12.2013 12:18, rkwesk_ltsp wrote:
I thought I had this figured out but I'd like to confirm:
Configuration 1
unmanaged switch w 1 giga port and 16 100 ports not connected
directly
w router
Server with two nics, one gigabit to giga
11 matches
Mail list logo
