In article <dne4vq$qbc$1@serpens.de>,
	mlelstv@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
> On the other hand, TCP isn't exactly fast with 5% packet loss either.

Yes, indeed.

> The problem with some older machines however was not some arbitrary
> packet loss but a very specific packet loss caused by back-to-back
> sending of IP fragments.

I'm not sure what you mean by "back-to-back". If you are talking are
refering to packets sent in burst I agree.

> By using TCP or by reducing rsize/wsize to 1k the problem goes away.

In my case (SPARCstation LX with 10Mb/s vs. Pentium 4 with 1Gb/s) using
TCP is enough. I don't have to reduce any of the NFS transaction sizes.

	Kind regards

-- 
Matthias Scheler                                  http://scheler.de/~matthias/