Re: Network stack/ethernet driver issues
Re: Network stack/ethernet driver issues
- Subject: Re: Network stack/ethernet driver issues
- From: Michael Cashwell <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:45:14 -0400
On Apr 9, 2008, at 8:58 PM, William Kucharski wrote:
email@hidden wrote:
If frequently dropping packets with only 40% of the available
bandwidth being utilized and no load on the machine other than an
application listening for and peeking at the contents of said
packets is considered OK then I will stick to Linux for my low
latency, high bandwidth network applications (and encourage others
to do likewise).
UDP can drop as many packets as it wants to, that's why it's UDP.
Incorrect. You are conflating non-retry with low Quality-of-Service.
They are independent things.
Very often UDP is used for data that are time-sensitive where retrying
(even if successful) would result in the data arriving late enough as
to be useless. Using UDP does not mean the data are less important
than TCP data. It just means that retries are not useful.
In fact, UDP data (consider live video conferencing) is often given a
HIGHER Quality of Service level specifically because retrying them is
not an option. If a router along the way is congested it might
preferentially drop a low-QoS TCP packet (since it's not real-time and
can be more easily recovered) than a high-QoS UDP one.
The point in rimas' case is that just because the data are UDP does
not give the Ethernet driver more permission to drop them than if they
were UDP nor does it mean they are less important.
-Mike
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden