On Dec 3, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 12/03/2010 03:48 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
>> If the protocol is latency sensitive then jumbo frames are BAD as it
>> adds more latency because frames take longer to fill, longer to
>> transmit and thus other conversations have to wait longe
On 12/03/2010 03:48 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>
> If the protocol is latency sensitive then jumbo frames are BAD as it
> adds more latency because frames take longer to fill, longer to
> transmit and thus other conversations have to wait longer (poor
> pipelining/interlacing).
>
> CIFS/NFS aren't real
On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 04:28 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
>> IMO lots of people waste time on jumbo frames when there's really no (or
>> very little) need.
>
> That depends on the protocols in use and your TCP window configuration.
> Streaming protocol
On 12/02/2010 04:28 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
> IMO lots of people waste time on jumbo frames when there's really no (or
> very little) need.
That depends on the protocols in use and your TCP window configuration.
Streaming protocols like HTTP may benefit less from jumbo frames
(except, as h
On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, miguelmeda...@sapo.pt wrote:
>
>> For completeness (since many previous posts have touched on this), we don't
>> use jumbo frames since we have no problem reaching wirespeed with normal 1500
>> frames.
>>
>
> Jumbo frames have advantages other than "reaching wiresp
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM, wrote:
> Bent Terp wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Timo Schoeler
>> wrote:
>>> You get what you pay for -- this is a valid rule of thumb throughout the
>>> whole life.
>>
>> Except with CentOS - we get SO much more than we pay for :-D
>
> Hah - I was th
> For completeness (since many previous posts have touched on this), we don't
> use jumbo frames since we have no problem reaching wirespeed with normal 1500
> frames.
>
Jumbo frames have advantages other than "reaching wirespeed". Its use
produces less overhead and in general less CPU utiliza
Timo Schoeler wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 04:34 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Bent Terp wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Timo Schoeler
>>> wrote:
You get what you pay for -- this is a valid rule of thumb throughout
the
whole life.
>>>
>>> Except with CentOS - we get SO much m
On 12/02/2010 04:34 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Bent Terp wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Timo Schoeler
>> wrote:
>>> You get what you pay for -- this is a valid rule of thumb throughout the
>>> whole life.
>>
>> Except with CentOS - we get SO much more than we pay for :-D
>
> Hah - I
Bent Terp wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Timo Schoeler
> wrote:
>> You get what you pay for -- this is a valid rule of thumb throughout the
>> whole life.
>
> Except with CentOS - we get SO much more than we pay for :-D
Hah - I was thinking of another angle: so, Timo, you pay for love?
On Thursday, December 02, 2010 08:28 PM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
> On Thursday 02 December 2010 12:22:38 Christopher Chan wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 02, 2010 06:53 PM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
>
> > > For completeness (since many previous posts have touched on this), we
>
> > > don't use
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Timo Schoeler
wrote:
> You get what you pay for -- this is a valid rule of thumb throughout the
> whole life.
Except with CentOS - we get SO much more than we pay for :-D
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://l
On Thursday 02 December 2010 12:22:38 Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Thursday, December 02, 2010 06:53 PM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
> > For completeness (since many previous posts have touched on this), we
> > don't use jumbo frames since we have no problem reaching wirespeed with
> > normal 1500 fram
On Thursday, December 02, 2010 06:53 PM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
> For completeness (since many previous posts have touched on this), we don't
> use jumbo frames since we have no problem reaching wirespeed with normal 1500
> frames.
Seriously? What switches?
___
On Wednesday 01 December 2010 20:12:18 Boris Epstein wrote:
> Hello listmates,
>
> As some of you may know we have been having a really bad problem with
> Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8169 cards. See here for details:
>
> http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?24,140124,140224
>
> So now my ques
On 01/12/10 21:12, Boris Epstein wrote:
> So now my question is, what PCI 1 Gbit/s Ethernet adapters should I
> use under CentOS? If you have had a consistent positive experience
> with any particular chipset/brand please speak up.
Use Intel NIC-s and you don't have to worry.
--
Veiko
__
On 12/01/2010 11:11 PM, John Hodrien wrote:
>
> I've had Broadcom NICs just go off into their own little world requiring the
> machine to be physically powered down and back up again before they'd start
> working again. Replaced with an Intel quad port board (igb driver) and all
> was decidedly we
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> Well, Realcrap is known to be crap everywhere. Ask the OpenBSD guys. ;)
>
> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames due to an
> internal design glitch.
I've
On 12/1/2010 2:33 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Steve Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>>
Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
are some Intel
On 12/1/2010 2:33 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Steve Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>>
Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
are some Intel
On 12/1/2010 2:12 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> Hello listmates,
>
> As some of you may know we have been having a really bad problem with
> Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8169 cards. See here for details:
>
> http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?24,140124,140224
>
> So now my question is, what PCI 1
On 12/01/2010 06:07 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> On 12/01/2010 11:17 AM, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>>
>>> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
>>> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames du
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 11:17 AM, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>
>> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
>> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames due to an
>> internal design glitch.
>
> Specifically
On 12/01/2010 11:17 AM, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>
> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames due to an
> internal design glitch.
Specifically the 82573 chipsets, which are still fairly common on
motherboa
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> Thanks. Looks good.
>
> I just looked around - looks like manufacturers tend not to list the
> chipset in their NIC specifications (like here, for instance:
> http://www.trendnet.com/products/proddetail.asp?prod=140_TEG-PCITXR&cat=14
> )
In
On Thursday, December 02, 2010 07:50 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Christopher
> Chan wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, December 02, 2010 03:28 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>>
Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; ho
On Dec 1, 2010, at 5:10 PM, Christopher Chan
wrote:
> On Thursday, December 02, 2010 03:28 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>
>>> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
>>> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle J
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Thursday, December 02, 2010 03:28 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>
>>> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
>>> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames
On Thursday, December 02, 2010 03:28 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>
>> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
>> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames due to an
>> internal design glitch.
>
> Seconded.
>> Is there a list somewhere out there listing what card features what
>> chipset?
>>
>> It definitely looks like it is best to just stick to the better
>> chipsets - might be a little more expensive but definitely worth the
>> money.
>
> You get what you pay for -- this is a valid rule of thumb t
On 12/01/2010 08:33 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Steve Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>>
Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
are some Inte
Boris Epstein wrote:
> Hello listmates,
>
> As some of you may know we have been having a really bad problem with
> Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8169 cards. See here for details:
>
> http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?24,140124,140224
>
> So now my question is, what PCI 1 Gbit/s Ethernet adapte
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>>
>>> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
>>> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames due to
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
>
>> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
>> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames due to an
>> internal design glitch.
>
> Seconded. I have a load of In
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> Intel. Broadcom. That's what we use here w/o any issues; however, there
> are some Intel NICs that are *not* able to handle Jumbo Frames due to an
> internal design glitch.
Seconded. I have a load of Intel 82576 and 82571EB's, and there have been
no iss
On 12/01/2010 08:12 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> Hello listmates,
>
> As some of you may know we have been having a really bad problem with
> Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8169 cards. See here for details:
>
> http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?24,140124,140224
>
> So now my question is, what PCI
Hello listmates,
As some of you may know we have been having a really bad problem with
Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8169 cards. See here for details:
http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?24,140124,140224
So now my question is, what PCI 1 Gbit/s Ethernet adapters should I
use under CentOS? If y
37 matches
Mail list logo
