Hi Florin,
Thanks for a quick response,
Tomasz
From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io [mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io] On Behalf Of Florin Coras
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 17:29
To: Kulasek, TomaszX
Cc: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] Control TCP_NODELAY and TCP_QUICKACK per session
Hi Tomasz,
Hi Tomasz,
We actually have both hardwired to “on" in the the stack. The reason why
they’re on VCL’s list is because we don’t have APIs to inspect/modify them.
There’s no plan to support Nagle’s algorithm but we should support at some
point adaptive acks.
Also, in case you haven’t been
Hi,
I'm working on switching from VCL to Session API in SPDK project, mostly for
iSCSI usage. For some features we need to set TCP_NODELAY and TCP_QUICKACK per
session.
For VCL implementation TCP_NODELAY (and some other features) are marked as
"#VPP-TBD#", but while we're switching to the
Added a Jira comment [1] with some details
and attached the same dump (just compressed better)
to the Jira bug report.
Vratko.
[1]
https://jira.fd.io/browse/VPP-1361?focusedCommentId=13104=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13104
-Original Message-
Hi Juraj,
I couldn’t say how much each compile ‘should’ use, but it has been noted in the
past that these template heavy C++ files do require a lot of memory to compile.
With the many cores you have, then that’s a lot in total.
‘make wipe’ does not clear the ccache, so any subsequent builds
Hi Neale,
I'm not specifying -j, but I see a lot of processes running in parallel when
the spike is happening. The processes are attached. They utilized most of 96
available cores and most of them used more than 400MB - is that how much they
should be using?
Also, here's the gcc version on
