From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Friesen Subject: Re: small RPS cache for fragments? Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:49:22 -0600 Message-ID: <4DED5972.6020507@genband.com> References: <20110606.122217.2183968212149987796.davem@davemloft.net> <1307390721.8149.2763.camel@tardy> <17839.1307394369@death> <20110606.144026.1544243502220840783.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fubar@us.ibm.com, rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.179]:55312 "EHLO exprod7og113.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758405Ab1FFWt3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:49:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110606.144026.1544243502220840783.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/06/2011 03:40 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Jay Vosburgh > Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:06:09 -0700 > >> Right, the common use case for balance-rr (round robin) is to >> maximize TCP throughput for one connection, over a set of whatever >> network devices are available (or are cheap) by striping that connection >> across multiple interfaces. The tcp_reordering sysctl is set to some >> large value so that TCP will deal with the reordering as best it can. > > FWIW, I really would never, ever, encourage schemes like this. Even > if they do happen to work. Why not? And if not then what's the recommended way to handle the above scenario? (Assuming hardware upgrade isn't an option.) Chris -- Chris Friesen Software Developer GENBAND chris.friesen@genband.com www.genband.com