On (2007-04-12 16:28 +0200), Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

On 12-apr-2007, at 16:04, Gian Constantine wrote:

I agree. The throughput gains are small. You're talking about a  

difference between a 4% header overhead versus a 1% header overhead  

(for TCP).

6% including ethernet overhead and assuming the very common TCP  

timestamp option.

Out of curiosity how is this calculated?

[ytti@ytti.fi ~]% echo "1450/(1+7+6+6+2+1500+4+12)*100"|bc -l

94.27828348504551365400

[ytti@ytti.fi ~]% echo "8950/(1+7+6+6+2+9000+4+12)*100"|bc -l

99.02633325957070148200

[ytti@ytti.fi ~]% 

I calculated less than 5% from 1500 to 9000, with ethernet and

adding TCP timestamp. What did I miss?

Or compared without tcp timestamp and 1500 to 4470.

[ytti@ytti.fi ~]% echo "1460/(1+7+6+6+2+1500+4+12)*100"|bc -l

94.92847854356306892000

[ytti@ytti.fi ~]% echo "4410/(1+7+6+6+2+4470+4+12)*100"|bc -l

97.82608695652173913000

Less than 3%.

However, I don't think it's relevant if it's 1% or 10%, bigger

benefit would be to give 1500 end-to-end, even with eg. ipsec

to the office.

-- 

  ++ytti