Gianfar is slower than fcc_enet on MPC8541 ???
Laurent Lagrange
lagrange at fr.oleane.com
Mon Feb 27 21:03:20 EST 2006
Hello Andy,
> The answer there is simple: stupidity!
The word is too hard, just say forgetting :-)
Thanks again
Laurent
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Andy Fleming [mailto:afleming at freescale.com]
> Envoye : jeu. 23 fevrier 2006 21:08
> A : Laurent Lagrange
> Cc : linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org; vbordug at ru.mvista.com;
> pantelis.antoniou at gmail.com
> Objet : Re: Gianfar is slower than fcc_enet on MPC8541 ???
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 11:28, Laurent Lagrange wrote:
>
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > I tried the below Andy's idea. It works fine.
> > It is my TCP clients which now slow the traffic.
> >
> > But I don't know why the default timeouts are so high.
> > If the traffic is high, the timeout does not fire.
> > If the traffic is low, the timeout seems too long (???).
>
> The answer there is simple: stupidity! :) I just didn't carefully
> test the values for performance when I chose them. I probably also
> did the math wrong, because I was more concerned about seeing if it
> worked at all. It's also possible it got set that way to see a
> measurable difference to prove it was working, and then got left as
> the default. Rest assured, there was not a deliberate reason. We
> submitted a patch once this performance issue was discovered.
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Linuxppc-embedded
mailing list