On Dec 3, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/03/2010 03:48 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
>> If the protocol is latency sensitive then jumbo frames are BAD as it
>> adds more latency because frames take longer to fill, longer to
>> transmit and thus other conversations have to wait longer (poor
>> pipelining/interlacing).
>>
>> CIFS/NFS aren't really latency sensitive protocols though. If a
>> protocol has a big TCP window then it will not tend to be latency
>> sensitive.
>
> I measure better throughput on NFS with jumbo frames than without.
> Measurement trumps assertions. :)
All I was trying to get across is that jumbo frames aren't to be used in latency sensitive applications as it adds latency.
As your findings show NFS is not a latency sensitive application and thus why you see better throughput with jumbo frames. That is also why NFS/CIFS can be used over a WAN while a latency sensitive protocol such as iSCSI is almost useless over the WAN.
-Ross
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
