From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267168AbTGOLGj (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:06:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267186AbTGOLGj (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:06:39 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:48325 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267168AbTGOLGi (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2003 07:06:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Alan Shih: "TCP IP Offloading Interface" From: Alan Cox To: David griego Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, dsaxena@mvista.com, alan@storlinksemi.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1058267923.3845.23.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 15 Jul 2003 12:18:44 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Maw, 2003-07-15 at 00:26, David griego wrote: > >Are these common cases to be optimized for latency or throughput? > I would personaly see the common case optimized for throughput on large > packets, and allow the smaller packets to be processed by the OS. Its very very application dependant. Latency is critical to a good file server, although storage people often like to handwave those numbers away (not all of them thankfully) Cluster people want low latency at all times, and latency is the one thing that is almost impossible to recover once you lose time to it