using jumbo frames kind of goes the opposite way the author has intended, right??
in their tests they are aiming for highest PPS - not the most efficient use of the link...
i would agree that an interesting test would be to see how much data can be transmitted in 1 minute with jumbo frames combined with the smaller gaps...
edit: oh and 15Mbps is decent enough, would love fibre to the home though.
Do you mean for internal use only? Wouldn't that be a moot point once it hits the next hop?
There's not necessarily one next hop. If you can stuff more packets than standard out to your upstream, and the upstream delivers the packets over multiple interfaces, it can pad the packets out to the standard length, and you get > 100% utilization.
I understand the original purpose of the minimum packet length (needed for reliable collision detection), but I don't think it's really necessary for gigE, where I believe full duplex, point to point connections are mandated. I also don't think the minimum size would be sufficient to guarantee collision detection in a hypothetical shared medium at the allowed bitrate and distances. Frame to frame delay on the other hand, seems like it would still be useful , although maybe it could be tuned.
Good answer +1, I was sort of thinking about this but I didnt have the knowledge.
I've no idea. That's why I'm asking. I guess internal use, yes, i.e.: for high-throughput local network infrastructure. I guess just going to 10GbE or fibre would be a cheaper method.
Nice write-up. I wonder if there's any market in spec-breaking routers that can accommodate smaller inter-frame gaps, etc.? What use is there for this that is not covered by jumbo frames?