Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs Subject: Re: Summary: NFS over links slower than 10 Mbit/sec Message-ID: Date: 8 Feb 91 00:16:07 GMT References: <1991Feb5.031603.2969@amd.com> <7371@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 23 In-reply-to: brent@terra.Eng.Sun.COM's message of 5 Feb 91 17:38:04 GMT In article <7371@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> brent@terra.Eng.Sun.COM (Brent Callaghan) writes: | In article <1991Feb5.031603.2969@amd.com>, remaker@icarus.amd.com (Phillip Remaker) writes: | > | > o Set UDP checksums on if IP headers are stripped off anywhere. This | > costs in performace but ensures data integrity. | | Actually, set UDP checksumming if the packets go off-ethernet. | | Without UDP checksums you only have the ethernet CRC to | protect your data. IP headers have a checksum, but it | only protects the header itself. Always set UDP checksums, even over ethernet. Back in a previous life, I was on a local ethernet where I could not reliably build GCC without one .o being corrupted. Whomever in Sun made the choice not to checksum NFS packets should have his/her/its head examined.... -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?