RE: Gianfar is slower than fcc_enet on MPC8541 ???

["Laurent Lagrange" <lagrange@fr.oleane.com>]

Hello Andy,

> The answer there is simple: stupidity!
The word is too hard, just say forgetting  :-)

Thanks again
Laurent

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Andy Fleming [mailto:afleming@freescale.com]
> Envoye : jeu. 23 fevrier 2006 21:08
> A : Laurent Lagrange
> Cc : linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org; vbordug@ru.mvista.com;
> pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com
> Objet : Re: Gianfar is slower than fcc_enet on MPC8541 ???
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:28, Laurent Lagrange wrote:
> 
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I tried the below Andy's idea. It works fine.
> > It is my TCP clients which now slow the traffic.
> >
> > But I don't know why the default timeouts are so high.
> > If the traffic is high, the timeout does not fire.
> > If the traffic is low, the timeout seems too long (???).
> 
> The answer there is simple: stupidity!  :)  I just didn't carefully  
> test the values for performance when I chose them.  I probably also  
> did the math wrong, because I was more concerned about seeing if it  
> worked at all.  It's also possible it got set that way to see a  
> measurable difference to prove it was working, and then got left as  
> the default.  Rest assured, there was not a deliberate reason.  We  
> submitted a patch once this performance issue was discovered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>