Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: zero-copy TCP fileserving | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 24 Sep 1999 20:01:30 +0200 |
| |
>>>>> "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 ;-)
I am still looking forward to the day when we will have zero-copy TX support, it should give us even more performance on the Linux boxes running our tape silos.
Jes
- 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/
| |