From: Marc Herbert <marc.herbert@free.fr>
To: Ricardo C Gonzalez <ricardoz@us.ibm.com>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [e1000 2.6 10/11] TxDescriptors -> 1024 default
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:11:04 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405190110280.30653@fcat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF817307D7.5FC78280-ON85256E98.004FDB43-86256E98.00500AA1@us.ibm.com>
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Ricardo C Gonzalez wrote:
> Are you considering the case of small packets?
Good point: I was not, because it adds some complexity :-/
> Many applications use
> lots of small packets. Example is the volano benchmark.
Well... isn't that example a bit extreme, rather than representative ?
> You needs to look at throughput rates for small packets. A 1GB ethernet
> can send something like 1.4 Million 64 byte packets per second.
>
> Let me know what you think.
I said in some previous message that, from the point of view of IP
"applications" in the very broad sense (i.e., including TCP) the
txqueuelen should ideally be defined in milliseconds, in order to give
an upper bound to latency. I reiterate that. So, for a given Ethernet
link _speed_, this would translates into an ideal definition of
txqueuelen in _bytes_ and not in _packets_. The current approximation
(in packets) seems to assume that people wishing to send a whole lot
of small packets are seldom, and can set the txqueuelen by themselves.
This seems sensible to me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-02 19:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405141430340.4622@fcat>
2004-05-18 14:34 ` [e1000 2.6 10/11] TxDescriptors -> 1024 default Ricardo C Gonzalez
2004-06-02 19:11 ` Marc Herbert [this message]
2003-09-12 5:13 Feldman, Scott
2003-09-12 12:44 ` jamal
2003-09-12 15:29 ` Donald Becker
2003-09-12 17:44 ` Ricardo C Gonzalez
2003-09-15 11:37 ` jamal
2003-09-12 18:12 ` Ben Greear
2003-09-12 18:31 ` Ricardo C Gonzalez
2003-09-15 11:29 ` jamal
[not found] <3F60DE5B.1010700@pobox.com>
2003-09-11 21:27 ` Ricardo C Gonzalez
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-09-09 3:14 Feldman, Scott
2003-09-11 19:18 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-09-11 19:45 ` Ben Greear
2003-09-11 19:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-09-11 20:12 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-11 20:40 ` Ben Greear
2003-09-11 21:07 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-11 21:29 ` Ben Greear
2003-09-11 21:29 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-11 21:47 ` Ricardo C Gonzalez
2003-09-11 22:00 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-09-11 22:15 ` Ben Greear
2003-09-11 23:02 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-11 23:22 ` Ben Greear
2003-09-11 23:29 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-12 1:34 ` jamal
2003-09-12 2:20 ` Ricardo C Gonzalez
2003-09-12 3:05 ` jamal
2003-09-13 3:49 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-13 11:52 ` Robert Olsson
2003-09-15 12:12 ` jamal
2003-09-15 13:45 ` Robert Olsson
2003-09-15 23:15 ` David S. Miller
2003-09-16 9:28 ` Robert Olsson
2003-09-14 19:08 ` Ricardo C Gonzalez
2003-09-15 2:50 ` David Brownell
2003-09-15 8:17 ` David S. Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0405190110280.30653@fcat \
--to=marc.herbert@free.fr \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=ricardoz@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox