[OpenAFS-devel] .35 sec rx delay bug?

[Harald Barth]

Derrick J Brashear wrote:
>Did you have jumbograms enabled? If you disable them, but leave the mtu at 
>9000, are things better? I bet they are.

Derick wrote that things get better when jumbograms are _dis_abled, did he?

Rainer wrote:
> is it naive to consider that if RX only works efficiently with 
> jumbograms enabled, than there is something wrong with the 
> implementation? 

Or did you mean the other way around or something else?

> What would it be that makes packet fragmentation and 
> reassembly so immensely more efficient compared with RX packet 
> handling? Why can TCP fill up a GigE leisurely and RX just gets about 
> half of it sweating a complete CPU?

Ehm, we have to be careful not to confuse RX_MAX_FRAGS with jumbograms.

Could please everyone reporting performance numbers include MTU size,
RX packet size and what's in each RX packet? 

I'd vote for a patch that sets RX-size < min( MTU(sender), MTU(receiver)).
because I only have seen grief about dropped fragments and I don't see
any performance gains from RX-size > MTU with todays hardware.

Harald.