Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > Willy Tarreau wrote: > > I agree with this. The impression I got from the description of the two > > patches I merged was that the problems they fix were quite annoying. But > > maybe I should take that with a grain of salt. > > No, it's not a grain of salt. I would say its utterly broken, out loud. > But many people are not that much into time-seq graphs (that I'm familiar > with), they are pleased when it seems to work well enough even though > from my perspective, it is simply unacceptable in worst cases (not > speaking of theoretical ones here, have seen very bad performance). Not > that it always is that bad, depends on phase of the opposite direction > what happens. > > Somebody asked me when those four patches were made about this, I put > these there back then: > > http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ijjarvin/bidir-showcase/ > > They are generated from my old test archives and thus may have a bit > differences in TCP variant, which may slightly differ from mainline > here and there (my point was just to show how it breaks). Typical > people wouldn't even notice those minor differences compared with the > bidir brokeness which is very visible in all except in the fixed "ok" > case. Please judge for yourself whether I overexaggrated or not... :-)
It would probably be helpful, if you could post a specific testcase and a combo-patch of your fixes. Thanks! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
