David Borman writes: > On the sending side, you'll tend to get your best performance when the > socket buffer is a multiple of the amount of TCP data per packet, and > the users writes are a multiple of the socket buffer. This keeps > everything neatly aligned, minimizing the number of data copies that > need to be done, and improving the chance of doing page flips.
Yes, this was very handy when doing the zero-copy receives. > Rounding down a 1500 byte ethernet packet to a 1K boundary looses too > much data, but for larger MTUs, the win of keeping everything neatly > aligned can exceed the cost of not packing each packet with the maximum > amount of data. Since applications that are writing large amounts of > data to a socket will tend to be using buffers aligned on a K boundary, > using a K aligned amount of TCP data increases the chances that > everything stays aligned. Good point. But how would you feel about making it optional with it defaulting as it is now? There are special cases. For example, I think its killing me on an experimental network interface which stripes data across 2 links. Drew _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
