> Mike Karels wrote:
> >>> Secure Computing (my employer) has a modification that seems reasonable
> >>> to me (well, I guess I wouldn't have done it otherwise). We adopted the
> >>> existing but unused JUMBO_MTU capability flag, and, if enabled, instructs
> >>> the driver to receive jumbo frames
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:55:17 -1000
> From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > what size is the actual maximal sized jumbo packet we will ever see?
>
> some transpac science community folk, who care more about speed trials
> with big data sets than they do about
Mike Karels wrote:
Secure Computing (my employer) has a modification that seems reasonable
to me (well, I guess I wouldn't have done it otherwise). We adopted the
existing but unused JUMBO_MTU capability flag, and, if enabled, instructs
the driver to receive jumbo frames according to the hardwar
> > Secure Computing (my employer) has a modification that seems reasonable
> > to me (well, I guess I wouldn't have done it otherwise). We adopted the
> > existing but unused JUMBO_MTU capability flag, and, if enabled, instructs
> > the driver to receive jumbo frames according to the hardware lim
Randy Bush wrote:
what size is the actual maximal sized jumbo packet we will ever see?
some transpac science community folk, who care more about speed trials
with big data sets than they do about over-stretching the ethernet crc,
use 9k jumbo frames.
well that's the standard but the highest I'v
Mike Karels wrote:
I'd like to just ask around as to whether relaxing the limit on drivers
makes sense, and if so, how much to relax it. While we're about it,
what size is the actual maximal sized jumbo packet we will ever see? (including
likely misconfigurations).
It is possible we should ju
>>> what size is the actual maximal sized jumbo packet we will ever see?
>> some transpac science community folk, who care more about speed trials
>> with big data sets than they do about over-stretching the ethernet crc,
>> use 9k jumbo frames.
> well that's the standard but the highest I've seen
Randy Bush wrote:
what size is the actual maximal sized jumbo packet we will ever see?
some transpac science community folk, who care more about speed trials
with big data sets than they do about over-stretching the ethernet crc,
use 9k jumbo frames.
well that's the standard but the highest I
> what size is the actual maximal sized jumbo packet we will ever see?
some transpac science community folk, who care more about speed trials
with big data sets than they do about over-stretching the ethernet crc,
use 9k jumbo frames.
randy
___
freebsd-
> I'd like to just ask around as to whether relaxing the limit on drivers
> makes sense, and if so, how much to relax it. While we're about it,
> what size is the actual maximal sized jumbo packet we will ever see?
> (including
> likely misconfigurations).
> It is possible we should just allow a
more on this issue:
802.3-2000 expanded the maximum frame size for standard ethernet to 1522
bytes (including vlan header, ethernet header and CRC). however this has
produced
quite a bit of confusion with HP telling their custommers to set their MTUs
on equipment to 1522, which in turn has packe
11 matches
Mail list logo
