-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/09/2012 02:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Johan, > > please don't http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU. Thanks. > > On Jan 4 21:25, Johan van den Berg wrote: >> I am very happy to report that increasing the send and receive >> buffers has done the job (at least, on a 10MBit link but will be >> testing a 100Mbit in a few days). I calculated the ideal size as >> per >> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-hisock/index.html > >> > it's nice to know that you could increase the performance by > increasing the buffer sizes. However, I'm reluctant to implement > this as a generic option. As far as I know the socket buffers are > taken from nonpaged pool, so generically using 2 Meg buffers will > take a lot of precious resources. > > I made a test in a local LAN between Linux and a W7 64 bit machine, > and I didn't see a lot of difference between 64K, 2 Megs, or > letting the OS decide. So I'm wondering if it's not the best > option to let the OS decide starting with Vista and later. Testing it on LAN will not show much. The buffer/TCP window size is important for high latency * bandwidth product connections.
> > How's the performance in your scenario when applying the below > patch instead of yours? - -- VZ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk8LF40ACgkQbJlIwZz1Ood/rwEAojdJKMJFtpmjKfOelJxa0p5L s8aSKELVKao7/IN0WAIA/0Z7osFYBOw4plvQ7ToDLHgquhbKBdI+9FfDSIta7PIP =wpBf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
