Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:49:34 -0600 From: Scott Long <scott4long@yahoo.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: Jack F Vogel <jfv@freebsd.org>, Justin Gibbs <gibbs@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Flow ID, LACP, and igb Message-ID: <2F36A2B1-A2AF-4331-BF2A-144915BEE706@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmom8TppCc1%2Bio53cCct17NV=7x374zfE7Zq1ShSZ72bufA@mail.gmail.com> References: <D01A0CB2-B1E3-4F4B-97FA-4C821C0E3FD2@FreeBSD.org> <521BBD21.4070304@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmom8TppCc1%2Bio53cCct17NV=7x374zfE7Zq1ShSZ72bufA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 26, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > ... is there any reason we wouldn't want to have the TX and RX for a = given > flow mapped to the same core? >=20 Given than an inbound ACK is likely to be turned into an outbound = segment from within the same execution context and CPU instance, I can't imagine = why it would be useful for these flows to be different. However, I'm still = a n00b at this networking stuff, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2F36A2B1-A2AF-4331-BF2A-144915BEE706>