Reasons to think of MTU size and avg value size?

Sean Carey carey at basho.com
Mon Aug 20 13:10:40 EDT 2012


Hey Patrick,   
You could try jumbo frames and it will buy you some extra CPU. We have done this in a couple of configurations and didn't notice anything crazy. Are you thinking increasing MTU might benefit in some other way, other than CPU. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts/results if you test.  

What kind of switches are you using? 

Also, I have never tried Super Jumbo.  


Thanks, 


Sean  


On Monday, August 20, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Patrik Sundberg wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I was just pondering a bit here - any pointers to think about in terms of MTU settings for a network with a riak cluster and clients? (let's ignore any other traffic on the network) It'd seem a good idea for MTU > median/mean value size (when we're talking about value sizes that aren't huge, kilobytes), but then there's the internal chatter in the cluster etc and it's not obvious what the trade off is. 
> 
> I didn't see it discussed in the mailing list much before.
> 
> Thanks,
> Patrik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com (mailto:riak-users at lists.basho.com)
> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/attachments/20120820/f414bb67/attachment.html>


More information about the riak-users mailing list