[29351] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Jumbo Frames (was Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner toreston VA. )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sthaug@nethelp.no)
Mon Jun 19 12:27:36 2000
To: rmeyer@mhsc.com
Cc: ras@e-gerbil.net, michael.dillon@gtsip.net, nanog@merit.edu
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:19:20 -0700"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:25:24 +0200
Message-ID: <52102.961431924@verdi.nethelp.no>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > These are important for many reasons. Without these
> > techniques, we can't
> > even do line rate GigE on "common place" servers, let alone
> > have any CPU
> > left over to do more then just send packets.
>
> Actually, my testing shows a falure to utilize even 100baseTX
> fully. Even in a switched FDX environment (no collisions) I can't
> achieve line rate without bumping the packet size up. Considering
> that the smallest box is a quad-CPU SMP machine (550Mhz), I don't
> think that there is a CPU shortage <grin>.
The your problem probably lies elsewhere. A decent operating system
(e.g. FreeBSD) can do line rate on 100baseTX with something along the
line of a Pentium-166. Not exactly a very powerful machine by current
standards. (And btw this was measured three years ago...)
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
