Thats what I wanted to know. You're right - no benefit for my end users. Thanks!
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:40 PM, David E. Smith <d...@mvn.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:30, RickG <rgunder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, I havent analysed it yet but with all the facebook uploads, online >> backups, and email attachedments going on I wonder if that is the case? >> > > First, by "very large files" I'm thinking tens of terabytes. Second, > there's only a benefit to jumbo-frames if EVERY device between the two > endpoints supports it. Chances are, the end-user's desktop doesn't support > it (or doesn't have it enabled), or you've got an old switch at a tower, or > someone at a co-lo on the other coast forgot to enable it. If any piece of > gear between the two doesn't support jumbo frames, your giant packet will > get fragmented anyway, and you may end up with worse performance. > > Obviously, you want to bench-test for your particular application, but > outside of some specialized environments (like Internet2) jumbo frames don't > really win you very much. > > David Smith > MVN.net > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- -RickG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
