2 ms·
this article is missing one of the main points for not going much larger. The larger you go, the more data you have to resend on a retransmit. Ethernet doesn't
by shaklee3 4y ago
this article is missing one of the main points for not going much larger. The larger you go, the more data you have to resend on a retransmit. Ethernet doesn't have fragmentation, so you can't simply resend a piece of it. in other words, if you had a 1MB frame that was lost, you would have to retransmit the entire thing again.
- jiveturkey 4y ago> The larger you go, the more data you have to resend on a retransmit. The reverse is true also! From TFA: > There’s certainly a performance incentive to not fragment [8192-byte] NFS traffic. Nowadays, most NFS traffic is likely over TCP. But back in the day it was not. So dropping 1 frame out of 6 that comprise a packet, meant that you had to retransmit all 6. BTW this is why DNS has lots of compression and limits on UDP packet size before [compliant] implementations switch to TCP. NFS has no such provisions.
- dale_glass 4y agoAt 10 Gbps, with 9000 byte packets there's 1.1 million packets/second. Compare that to say, a 56K modem that can handle all of 4 1500 byte packets/second. Also, not only time to retransmit matters, but the amount of power we expend per packet. I think it's ridiculous to have thousands of times more overhead than necessary, and this likely hurts a lot more than the rare retransmission.
- zamadatix 4y agoThat and the checksum (as it was originally designed) becoming relatively useless at larger sizes.