From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:50:34 -0600 From: ron minnich To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] datakit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Topicbox-Message-UUID: d824a654-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Brantley Coile wrote: > This isn't the first time offloading things for tcp has been trie. I > remember when TCP first made its appearance it was criticised for > using to many cpu cycles. So, thought hardworking entrepreneurs, we > can put TCP into a separate processor and off load the work. Summer > USENIX of '85 saw a lot of these TCP Offload Engines. That didn't > last long. > > Nice thing about being around for so long; you get to avoid stepping > in the same pile twice. TOE was proposed (and hardware was built) for: 10 mbit, 100 mbit 1000 mbit, 10000 mbit ethernet and other networks. Each time it seems to make sense -- for about one iteration of the silicon design rules. So I agree with you: it's not as convincing the 4th time around. ron