EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SACK performance improvements - technical report and
> updated 2.6.6 patches
>
> From: "Douglas Leith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:40:26 -
>
&
From: "Douglas Leith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:40:26 -
> Well some feedback to that effect might have been useful a while
> back Dave.
I gave him feedback on at least 5 seperate occaisions, both
publicly and in private correspondance.
Others have done so as well.
-
To un
From: "Injong Rhee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:11:40 -0500
> I wonder the same. I wonder how this new patch by the HTCP folks
> improves what we provided for the 2.6.x (which is currently
> incorporated in the latest linux version). My recollection says that
> this HTCP patch pe
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 4:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SACK performance improvements - technical report and
> updated 2.6.6 patches
>
> From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for sharing!
I found the report fun reading in the sense that I don't know of many folks
who've worked on slow path performance improvement.
However, having written some of these kinds of papers in the past, I'll point
out that before it could be considered publishable, it needs a much cl
From: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:26:54 +
> Your comments on this work would be appreciated.
Ummm... how about the patches that fix this which are in the 2.6.x
kernel already?
Yes, it's not your stuff, but it was incredibly less invasive and
probably works nearl
Hello,
I wanted to post an update about my work for SACK performance
improvements, I've updated the patches on our website and added a
technical report on the work so far.
It can be found at:
http://hamilton.ie/net/research.htm#patches
In summary: The Linux stack so far is unable to effectively
