Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to dowith ECN)

2001-01-30 Thread jamal
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Rick Jones wrote: > > ** I reported that there was also an oddity in throughput values, > > unfortunately since no one (other than me) seems to have access > > to a gige cards in the ZC list, nobody can confirm or disprove > > what i posted. Here again as a reminder: > > >

Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to dowith ECN)

2001-01-30 Thread Rick Jones
> ** I reported that there was also an oddity in throughput values, > unfortunately since no one (other than me) seems to have access > to a gige cards in the ZC list, nobody can confirm or disprove > what i posted. Here again as a reminder: > > Kernel | tput | sender-CPU | receiver-CPU |

Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to dowith ECN)

2001-01-30 Thread Rick Jones
** I reported that there was also an oddity in throughput values, unfortunately since no one (other than me) seems to have access to a gige cards in the ZC list, nobody can confirm or disprove what i posted. Here again as a reminder: Kernel | tput | sender-CPU | receiver-CPU |

Re: Still not sexy! (Re: sendfile+zerocopy: fairly sexy (nothing to dowith ECN)

2001-01-30 Thread jamal
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Rick Jones wrote: ** I reported that there was also an oddity in throughput values, unfortunately since no one (other than me) seems to have access to a gige cards in the ZC list, nobody can confirm or disprove what i posted. Here again as a reminder: Kernel