From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Nagle latency tuning
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:54:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48C6B83A.3080501@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <732BEAC4-63ED-413B-8BE6-E194DFA6DD7B@oracle.com>
>> If the applications are sending streams of logically unrelated sends
>> down the same socket, then setting TCP_NODELAY is IMO fine. Where it
>> isn't fine is where these applications are generating their logically
>> associated data in two or more small sends. One send per message
>> good. Two sends per message bad.
>
>
> Can the same be said of the Linux kernel's RPC client, which uses
> MSG_MORE and multiple sends to construct a single RPC request on a TCP
> socket?
That drifts away from Nagle and into my (perhaps old fuddy-duddy) belief
in minimizing the number of system/other calls to do a unit of work, and
degrees of "badness:)"
rick jones
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-09 17:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-08 21:56 RFC: Nagle latency tuning Christopher Snook
2008-09-08 22:39 ` Rick Jones
2008-09-09 5:10 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-09 5:17 ` David Miller
2008-09-09 5:56 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-09 6:02 ` David Miller
2008-09-09 10:31 ` Mark Brown
2008-09-09 12:05 ` David Miller
2008-09-09 12:09 ` Mark Brown
2008-09-09 12:19 ` David Miller
2008-09-09 6:22 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2008-09-09 6:28 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-09 13:00 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-09-09 14:36 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-09 18:40 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-09 19:07 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-09 19:21 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-09-11 4:08 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-09 19:59 ` David Miller
2008-09-09 20:25 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-22 10:49 ` David Miller
2008-09-22 11:09 ` David Miller
2008-09-22 20:30 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-22 22:22 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-22 22:26 ` David Miller
2008-09-22 23:00 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-22 23:13 ` David Miller
2008-09-22 23:24 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-22 23:21 ` David Miller
2008-09-23 0:14 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-23 0:33 ` Rick Jones
2008-09-23 2:12 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-23 1:40 ` David Miller
2008-09-23 2:23 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-23 2:28 ` David Miller
2008-09-23 2:41 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-22 22:47 ` Rick Jones
2008-09-22 22:57 ` Chris Snook
2008-09-09 16:33 ` Rick Jones
2008-09-09 16:54 ` Chuck Lever
2008-09-09 17:21 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2008-09-09 17:54 ` Rick Jones [this message]
2008-09-08 22:55 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-09 5:22 ` Chris Snook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48C6B83A.3080501@hp.com \
--to=rick.jones2@hp.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=csnook@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.