From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Bonding, GRO and tcp_reordering Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:42:11 -0800 Message-ID: <4CF6A513.4030400@hp.com> References: <20101130135549.GA22688@verge.net.au> <4CF53AB2.60209@hp.com> <20101201043017.GA3485@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Simon Horman Return-path: Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:40781 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756498Ab0LATmO (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:42:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20101201043017.GA3485@verge.net.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >>You are in a maze of twisty heuristics and algorithms, all >>interacting :) If there are only three links in the bond, I suspect >>the chances for spurrious fast retransmission are somewhat smaller >>than if you had say four, based on just hand-waving on three >>duplicate ACKs requires receipt of perhaps four out of order >>segments. > > > Unfortunately NIC/slot availability only stretches to three links :-( > If you think its really worthwhile I can obtain some more dual-port nics. Only if you want to increase the chances of reordering that triggers spurrious fast retransmits. rick jones