From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bifrost.lang.hm (mail.lang.hm [64.81.33.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 847AB201745 for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 15:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id p4DM8fsN003179; Fri, 13 May 2011 15:08:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:08:41 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Dave Taht In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4DB70FDA.6000507@mti-systems.com> <4DC2C9D2.8040703@freedesktop.org> <20110505091046.3c73e067@nehalam> <6E25D2CF-D0F0-4C41-BABC-4AB0C00862A6@pnsol.com> <35D8AC71C7BF46E29CC3118AACD97FA6@srichardlxp2> <1304964368.8149.202.camel@tardy> <4DD9A464-8845-49AA-ADC4-A0D36D91AAEC@cisco.com> <1305297321.8149.549.camel@tardy> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/Mixed; BOUNDARY="===============3737970679285305306==" Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Burst Loss X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 22:00:23 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --===============3737970679285305306== Content-Type: TEXT/Plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 May 2011, Dave Taht wrote: > Not, incidentally that I mind the idea of jumbo frames. It seems silly to be > saddled with default frame sizes that made sense in the 70s, and in an age > where we will be seeing ever more packet encapsulation, reducing the header > size as a ratio to data size strikes me as a very worthy goal. the header to data size ratio is a small factor (but with a header of ~50 bytes, you don't save _that_ much) but I thought the huge advantage to jumbo frames was eliminating the gap between packets. back in the 1Mb network days, this gap size was not significant (a few bits work), but as networks have gotten faster, the gap has not gotten smaller by the same ratio. you guys are probably closer to the raw numbers than I am, but what it the total throughput of a network (including header data as throughput) for various packet sizes (64 byte, 1500 byte, 9000 byte) David Lang --===============3737970679285305306== Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat --===============3737970679285305306==--