" Mark Hahn wrote:"
>
> > > I had an AMD K6 200 with an ISA NE2K card whan I started using Linux...
> ...
> > such broken behaviour.
>
> the only thing broken is that the nic is pitiful and eats CPU.
>
> > i`ve made a further research and discovered the fact that
> > ping -l 99999999 - does not corrupt the sound
> > ping -l 99999999 -s 256 - does not corrupt the sound
> > ping -l 99999999 -s 512 - significantly corrupts the sound
> > ping -l 99999999 -s 16384 - heavily corrupts the sound with stalls
>
> right, so more fragmentation-assembly increases the CPU load,
> no surprise there.
damn, i have a mtu of 1500 and i dont quite see abt what frag/reassembly
are you talking about while the problems start to pop out on _256_ bytes
large packets (yes 256+smth like 32 or more)
>
> > My thinking is that if 2.0 was better than 2.4 in this case, we definitely
> > need to find out why was it so and use its strong side.
>
> your particular case is not worth fixing; I doubt it applies to machines
> with modern CPU, modern dram, modern nics.
>
>
but why? 2.0 is ok, 2.4 is broken.
look: we have 2.0 serving NIC interrupts more efficintly than 2.4, and you
say that we even dont need to know _why_ its so!?
why do you neglect the possible improvement of that case?
cheers, Samium Gromoff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:15 EST