North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: jumbo frames

  • From: Roeland Meyer
  • Date: Thu Apr 26 15:19:20 2001

> From: Tony Hain [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:47 AM
> 
> April 26, 2001 9:29 AM John Fraizer wrote:
> > We only have jumbo frames enabled on router<->router links. 
>  The GigE
> > ports facing the aggregation switches runs standard 1500 MTU.
> 
> Hence my original question. Packets across the GE will be 
> 1500 unless you
> are packing them.
> 
> April 25, 2001 8:10 PM John Fraizer wrote:
> > Partially because I can.  Partially because there seems to be a
> > performance increase when you start stuffing the pipe.
> 
> Assuming you are just passing the packets as received from 
> the aggregation
> switch, this would only happen if your router hardware was better at
> managing jumbo buffer allocations than 1500B ones. Clearly it 
> will waste
> large chunks of memory, so do you have measurements to show the actual
> performance increase?

This depends on the type of traffic. We use it to enhance performance of the
data tier. We've jiggered the TCP/IP stacks for ~4500 byte packets and have
knee-capped the slow-start algorithm (which doesn't make sense in a pure
switched environment anyway). What we then wind up with, is a dedicated data
LAN between our application servers and the Oracle database servers. It
comes out to about an order of magnitude increase in performance and SQL
query responsiveness. At first we went to jumbo packets. We saw such a
radical improvement that we started investigating and found the slow-start
issue. Jumbo packets are one way around the slow-start problem if you can't
jigger the stack itself. Most of the queries are reasonably short so we saw
some serious improvements by killing the slow-start. If you can modify your
IP stack then it still pays to use jumbo packets because you reduce the
overhead on the wire.

We got sufficient performance improvement that we were able to defer GigE
implementation, at some sites. Those sites are using switched FDX 100baseTX.