That is fine by me so long as we mark the rest of the length field as
reserved and don't touch it.
-=R
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My sweet-spot number was 16k, as I knew that I could saturate a 10G nic
>> with 16k frames/writes and have enough CPU left over to do some actual
>> work. The amount of overhead goes up more than linearly with the decrease
>> in frame size thanks to contention, etc.
>>
>>
>
> Given what you've said here and in the other mail (plus of course my own
> previously stated concerns) I'm inclined to suggest a 16KB max (14 bits)
> without introducing any kind of max frame size configurable. My point is to
> drive it as small as we can without creating excessive overhead and you've
> put a stake in the ground that 16KB is that level. That's still 4x as
> aggressive as the current draft.
>
>