From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp7.clb.oleane.net (smtp7.clb.oleane.net [213.56.31.27]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E927E679FC for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:57:50 +1100 (EST) From: "Laurent Lagrange" To: "'Andy Fleming'" Subject: RE: Gianfar is slower than fcc_enet on MPC8541 ??? Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:03:20 +0100 Message-ID: <002601c63b85$0b2e9850$5201a8c0@GEG2400> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" In-Reply-To: <9A05AF34-3A14-4D64-9EDF-81D7C3C315FE@freescale.com> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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. > > > > >