lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: zero-copy TCP fileserving
    From
    Date
    Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch (Jes Sorensen) writes:

    > >>>>> "Pete" == Pete Wyckoff <wyckoff@ca.sandia.gov> writes:
    >
    > Pete> davem@redhat.com said:
    > >> This is the whole point of "zero-copy" TCP, or did I miss something
    > >> in the changes you did?
    >
    > Pete> Right you are. I only avoided the checksum calculation, which
    > Pete> is hardly worth it for modern processors even though the NIC
    > Pete> will do it for you.
    >
    > Pete> One could further argue that TCP is not the protocol of choice
    > Pete> if you're looking to minimize transfer latency. There's still
    > Pete> the receive path to worry about, for instance.
    >
    > Latency? zero-copy TCP is not going to do anything to the latency,
    > since a NIC that does TCP checksumming on TX will have to do it as
    > 'store and forward' since the checksum is in the header. The world is
    > about bulk data transfers ;-)

    Or you could use XTP with tailer checksums ;);)

    Of course implementing all the complexity of XTP is another thing.

    -Andi

    --
    This is like TV. I don't like TV.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:2.153 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site