From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Route cache performance under stress Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20030610.093349.48511220.davem@redhat.com> References: <3EE5C7E9.6090401@monmouth.com> <20030610080901.M37190@shell.cyberus.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jsd@monmouth.com, pekkas@netcore.fi, ralph+d@istop.com, xerox@foonet.net, sim@netnation.com, fw@deneb.enyo.de, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: hadi@shell.cyberus.ca In-Reply-To: <20030610080901.M37190@shell.cyberus.ca> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Jamal Hadi Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Theres another dimension actually: mostly driven by BSD mbuff style packet allocation; some tests show that some vendors are optimized for certain packet sizes, Linux skbuffs dont have this problem. Well, the most amusing part for me is that if you read all the papers on TCP congestion algorithms you'd think that routers dropped based upon packet sizes since the majority work on multiple of MSS this and multiple of MSS that. :) Routers drop packets, period. They do so using a variety of selection schemes (RED, CBQ, actually just egrep net/sched/sch_*.c :) but you're contribution to the router's work is measured in terms of packets and time when you come right down to it.