30/01/2018 14:48, Adrien Mazarguil:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:25:00PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > > Hi Kevin,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:48:43AM +, Kevin Laatz wrote:
> > > > Increasing the RX/TX defaul
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:25:00PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:48:43AM +, Kevin Laatz wrote:
> > > Increasing the RX/TX default ring size to 1024/1024 to accommodate for
> >
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 02:13:19PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:48:43AM +, Kevin Laatz wrote:
> > Increasing the RX/TX default ring size to 1024/1024 to accommodate for
> > faster NICs. With the increase of number of PPS, a larger RX buffer is
> > r
Hi Kevin,
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:48:43AM +, Kevin Laatz wrote:
> Increasing the RX/TX default ring size to 1024/1024 to accommodate for
> faster NICs. With the increase of number of PPS, a larger RX buffer is
> required in order to avoid packet loss. While a ring size of 128 may be
> large
Increasing the RX/TX default ring size to 1024/1024 to accommodate for
faster NICs. With the increase of number of PPS, a larger RX buffer is
required in order to avoid packet loss. While a ring size of 128 may be
large enough for 1G and possibly 10G NICs, this is not going to scale to
small packet
5 matches
Mail list logo