Re: Packet timestamps (was: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20)

2007-03-06 Thread Vladimir B. Savkin
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 04:16:24PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > It would be better to name the tunable "disable_timestamps", default 0 of > course I agree. If networking maintainers are interested, I surely can prepare a patch. But IMO some way to force TSC usage on x86_64 will be even b

Re: Packet timestamps (was: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20)

2007-03-06 Thread Vladimir B. Savkin
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 03:38:44PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > 2) "accurate_timestamps" is misleading. > Should be "disable_timestamps" Not, if default is 1, as in my patch. ~ :wq With best regards, Vladi

Packet timestamps (was: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20)

2007-03-06 Thread Vladimir B. Savkin
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 09:51:09AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote: > >That came from named. It opens lots of sockets with SIOCGSTAMP. > >No idea what it needs that many for. > > IIRC ISC BIND named opens a socket for each IP it finds on the system. > Presumeably in this way it "knows" implicitly the des