[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: opensolaris-driver-discuss
Subject: Re: [driver-discuss] Re: [networking-discuss] Brussels high-level
From: Darren.Reed () Sun ! COM
Date: 2007-06-25 21:51:01
Message-ID: 468038C5.1050206 () Sun ! COM
[Download RAW message or body]
Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>Garrett D'Amore writes:
> > The problem here is that the only reason to lower the MTU is to deal
> > with cases where Path MTU discovery fails. For example, lowering the
> > MTU because your upstream provider doesn't properly deal with frames
> > larger than a PPP size or somesuch.
> >
> > Its frustrating that these cases still exist, but they do. In general,
> > I agree, that lowering the MTU should not be necessary. And indeed,
> > frankly nobody should need to touch the values provided by the media
> > drivers when everything works properly.
>
>You may want to touch the values in order to reduce memory useage if
>you know you cannot use jubmo frames. Since most drivers manage their
>own receive buffers, this can add up. For example, my 10GbE driver,
>depending on load, may allocate up to a (tunable) maximum of 4096
>receive buffers. The difference between 4096 1500b and 9000b frames
>is nearly 30MB.
>
>It would be nice if the driver could be notified that the MTU is
>changing so that it can re-allocate appropriately sized receive
>buffers. Every other *nix that I've worked with does this.
>
>
It would be nice if the buffer space used by a driver could be
specified in terms of MB rather than n buffers.
Darren
_______________________________________________
driver-discuss mailing list
driver-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/driver-discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic