On 8/7/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 01:00:55PM +0000, Nick Buraglio wrote: > > Is there a reason you're running jumbo frames? If you're going to > > I need more performance on NFS and RDP (assuming, RDP can make > use of jumbo frames -- I'm not sure, and the the current > firmware of the switch doesn't show the jumbo diagnostics).
I just had to ask. I've seen many people "need" it but then not really have a reason and since many vendors do it differently it can become a pain. I will likely help with large data transfers using NFS. > enable it you should run it on all interfaces that touch the segment. > > It will likely work on lower mtu devices but it is certainly not > > beat practice to mix and match. If you are running it internally > > to gain performance then you may see some improvements depending > > on what protocol you are using to transfer data (assuming at > > Yes, that's the reason. Of course it's a GBit Ethernet network. > There's very little point with jumbo frames on 100 MBit Ethernet, > should it even be supported. Again, had to ask. Large MTU support is sometimes used where it really isn't the best solution so I wanted to make sure there wasn't a better solution to the issue you were trying to address. > least gig connectivity) but unless you're ISP supports it (and > > you have like FTTC) you won't see any upstream gain. > > The ISP is a vanilla ADSL (PPPoE), so I can't up the MTU there. It really should be enabled on the entire segment, you may or may not see weirdness and hard to diagnose problems if you don't. -- > Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >
