From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Subject: Re: tcp bw in 2.6 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:40:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20071002184032.GB29944@bitmover.com> References: <20070929142517.EC6AB5FB21@work.bitmover.com> <20070929172639.GB7037@bitmover.com> <20071002005917.GB5480@bitmover.com> <20071002022059.GE7037@bitmover.com> <47027C63.803@hp.com> <20071002172002.GO17418@bitmover.com> <4702878B.4040102@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , davem@davemloft.net, wscott@bitmover.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Rick Jones Return-path: Received: from ipcop.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.15]:43665 "EHLO mail.bitmover.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753283AbXJBSkd (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:40:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4702878B.4040102@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:01:47AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > has anyone already asked whether link-layer flow-control is enabled? I doubt it, the same test works fine in one direction and poorly in the other. Wouldn't the flow control squelch either way? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com