Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: zero-copy TCP fileserving | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 24 Sep 1999 21:49:40 +0200 |
| |
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/
| |