Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:03:44 -0800 From: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu (Bruce A. Mah) To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: bmah@cs.berkeley.edu, ccsanady@friley216.res.iastate.edu, dyson@freebsd.org, gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pbufs (was: Re: ufs is too slow?) Message-ID: <199611131803.KAA04201@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:13:18 %2B0100." <22583.847905198@verdi.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sthaug@nethelp.no writes: > > (Editorial note: Packet traces have shown that many packets, at least on > > LANs, tend to be small. So it's not clear to me what effect this would hav > e > > for "typical" network traffic, though the wins for large bulk transfers hav > e > > shown to be substantial.) > > It's also likely to help *latency* for smaller packets quite a bit. I agree that Van's proposed changes to packet processing will improve latency, but it is not at all obvious how the changes to *buffer allocation* would affect latency. Sorry if I was unclear on what "this" meant in my note. > See http://ee.lbl.gov/nrg-talks.html > > In particular, the 1992 talk "Design Changes to the Kernel Network > Architecture for 4.4BSD", and the 1993 talk "Some Design Issues for > High-speed Networks". Thanks for the pointer. Cheers, Bruce.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611131803.KAA04201>