On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:07:32PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > that because the kernel was getting 99% of the cpu, the application was
> > getting very little, and thus the read wasn't happening fast enough, and
>
> Seems reasonable
>
> > This is NOT what I'm seeing at all.. the kernel load appea
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:07:32PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > that because the kernel was getting 99% of the cpu, the application was
> > getting very little, and thus the read wasn't happening fast enough, and
>
> Seems reasonable
>
> > This is NOT what I'm seeing at all.. the kernel load appea
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:58:23AM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> Dropping packets under load will make tcp do the right thing. You don't need
> complex mathematical models since dropping frames under load is just another
> form of congestion and tcp handles it pretty sanely
Alan: thanks for your respo
I am working on a very high speed packet based interface but we are having
severe problems related to bandwidth vs cpu horsepower. enclosed is a part
of a summary. PLEASE cc responses directly to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks!!!
--
"Who would be stupid enough to quote a fictitious character?"
4 matches
Mail list logo
