Archives


- Beowulf
- Beowulf Announce
- Scyld-users
- Beowulf on Debian

Ethernet Flowcontrol...

Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.

Search

Donald Becker becker at scyld.com
Thu Jan 17 15:49:33 PST 2002


On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Bill Northrup wrote:

> Hello everyone. I was just about to begin some network tuning and wanted
> to get some input from the list. We have a few gig devices that talk to
> other gig devices as well as the lesser Fast Ethernet nodes. I am well
> aware of the gig frame padding, latency and such with gig e.

Frame padding shouldn't concern most people -- no one is running Gb
Ethernet with repeaters.  (IMHO, the MAC changes for Gb half duplex were
a waste of time.)

> However I
> was wondering if anyone is using flow control both rx and tx or asym to
> help with packet flow?

There is little down-side to flow control, and it's usually enabled by
default.  Link flow control is transparent, and can minimize overruns
and dropped packets.  For the 100Mb->1Gb direction, where presumably
flow control would never be triggered, it has no performance impact.

> For instance I have a gig master that is trying
> to shove everything down a fast e pipe at the switch. Should one just
> enable TX flow control on the gig segment? The other way from fast e to
> gig e wouldn't be an issue, right? Does relying on the network for flow
> control reduce the overhead encountered on any of the machines or
> possibly off load it to the network devices that may do it better? I'll
> report back to the list what I find, but everyone's mileage is
> different.

Donald Becker				becker at scyld.com
Scyld Computing Corporation		http://www.scyld.com
410 Severn Ave. Suite 210		Second Generation Beowulf Clusters
Annapolis MD 21403			410-990-9993




More information about the Beowulf mailing list