Talk:TCP Offload Engine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Computer networking, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Computer networking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid priority within Computer networking for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
Computer networking To-do:
|
||
[edit] The POV problem with this article
It seems that there are many valid objections cited for TOEs in the external links. Could someone with more time integrate them into the article? It reads somewhat like an advertisement for this technology in light of these objections. Jesse Viviano 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree this does not sound like an advertisement at all. It is simple and factual, to the point. Perhaps more information related to the TOE technology could be added, that would be a nice addition. However if you research TCP/IP and have experience with statistics of using that protocol you will see that the processor usage claim is valid. Also expansion of the relationship of TCP/IP and PCI architecture could use some expansion. Of course there are also valid objections to using TOE. Perhaps someone should add to the article both sides of the argument and let readers decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.178.209 (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If one reads the external link regarding why Linux does not support TOE (http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Net:TOE), you will find that the speed gain claims are not legitimate. Also, keeping the code closed-source is compromising the potential for the Linux community to provide input into making the technology more effective and practical. ~Brent
- "the processor usage claim is valid."
- Actually it's not as valid as you would think it is. This article was written back when 1GbE was a new thing. Since then, operating systems (well, Linux at least) and nearly all Ethernet chipsets have come to support lots of less intrusive offloading techniques: TCP segmentation offload, TX/RC checksum offload, polling RX (NAPI), and large receive offload. With all these, there is a lot you can do with a 2.4GHz CPU. -- intgr [talk] 09:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh gee, Linux guys complaining and whining about close-source technology. What a surprise. There's no POV problem here - the article is brief, informative, and to-the-point. I'm deleting the POV marker. Scortiaus (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about stopping the personal attacks and actually contributing to the discussion? You didn't even try to address any of the claims brought up on this page so you don't really have a case. -- intgr [talk] 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've integrated criticism of TOE into the article, and thus removed the POV tag. Brianski (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
