nanog mailing list archives
Re: Jumbo frames
From: Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:56:17 +0100
On 28 Mar 2007, at 00:28, Jim Shankland wrote:
Jumbo frames seem to help a lot when trying to max out a 10 GbE link, which is what the Internet land speed record guys have been doing. At 45 Mb/s, I'd be very surprised if it bought you more than 2-4% in additional throughput. It's worth a shot, I suppose, if the network infrastructure supports it.
The original poster was talking about a streaming application - increasing the frame size can cause it take longer for frames to fill a packet and then hit the wire increasing actual latency in your application.
Probably doesn't matter when the stream is text, but as voice and video get pushed around via IP more and more, this will matter.
Current thread:
- TCP and WAN issue Philip Lavine (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Joe Abley (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Joe Abley (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Roland Dobbins (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Robert Boyle (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue JAKO Andras (Mar 27)
- RE: TCP and WAN issue michael.dillon (Mar 27)
- [no subject] Jim Shankland (Mar 27)
- RE: Jumbo frames michael.dillon (Mar 27)
- RE: Jumbo frames Jim Shankland (Mar 27)
- Re: Jumbo frames Andy Davidson (Mar 29)
- RE: Jumbo frames michael.dillon (Mar 29)
- Re: Jumbo frames Stephen Sprunk (Mar 30)
- [no subject] Jim Shankland (Mar 27)
- RE: Jumbo frames Hank Nussbacher (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Joe Abley (Mar 27)
- Re: Perry Lorier (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Steve Meuse (Mar 27)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Andre Oppermann (Mar 28)
- Re: TCP and WAN issue Marshall Eubanks (Mar 28)