From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 May 2002 13:58:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 May 2002 13:58:15 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:4290 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 May 2002 13:58:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:46:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020510.104605.71194376.davem@redhat.com> To: zaitcev@redhat.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Tcp/ip offload card driver From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <200205101755.g4AHtqw04422@devserv.devel.redhat.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Pete Zaitcev Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 13:55:52 -0400 > For example, do a SpecWEB run with TUX both using on-chip-TCP and > without, same networking card. Show a demonstrable gain from the > on-chip-TCP implementation. I bet you can't. NO! Doing such a test sets you up for a failure. If a vendor of the card provides an on-chip TCP, it is entirely in the vendor's interest to penalize regular TCP (for example, by failing to provide checksum offload or sane S/G segments). I only consider fair a test of on-chip TCP compared to the best of the normal NICs. Sorry, I should have stated this explicitly. The same card must have SG/Checksumming capability for the no-TCP-onchip portion of the test.