Re: TCP_NODELAY and CORK - should they be added for network fs case?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: smfrench@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: TCP_NODELAY and CORK - should they be added for network fs case?
From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-cifs-client@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <524f69650910151032q3a5e9ee0k18415f5c8212890e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

You'll reach networking developers on netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

linux-net is for user level questions and discussion
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

References:
- TCP_NODELAY and CORK - should they be added for network fs case?
  - From: Steve French

Prev by Date: TCP_NODELAY and CORK - should they be added for network fs case?
Next by Date: The linux-pci mailing list has been moved
Previous by thread: TCP_NODELAY and CORK - should they be added for network fs case?
Next by thread: TCP performance on a lossy 1Gbps link
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Netdev] [Ethernet Bridging] [Linux 802.1Q VLAN] [Linux Wireless] [Kernel Newbies] [Security] [Linux for Hams] [Netfilter] [Git] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News and Information] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux RAID] [Linux PCI] [Linux Admin] [Samba]

Powered by Linux