🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <pmb863c@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com>, vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
|>...
|>Do you agree that no owner frames also consume no bandwidth?  That they
|>are only harmful if they have broadcast or multicast DA's or if you are
|>using MAC's in promiscuous mode?  (e.g. in bridges and ring analayzers;
|>DEC makes the former, SGI the latter)

That's what I said.

|>Has anyone seen throughput problems when purging is happening?
|>As in reducing TCP from 6MByte/sec to 2 MB/s?  I have one such report,
|>but have not been able to reproduce it, nor to figure out a way in
|>which it might happen.  I have seen 2-6% drops from 6MB/s by turning on
|>a purger on a ring with 50 usec latency and sub-millisecond average
|>token latency (even at 6.5MB/s), which I guess sounds benign and
|>reasonable, given that any jostling in timing hurts throughput, at
|>least for me.  I just can't see how the purger might reduce performance
|>by 60%.
|>
|>Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com

I saw that report too, and I can't explain it either.  Perhaps some data
will come in in the future.  It's good to hear that it doesn't show up
elsewhere.

	paul