On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Ray Dillinger <b...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 15:59 -0700, David Barrett wrote: > > Interesting article: > > > > > http://blog.benstrong.com/2010/11/google-and-microsoft-cheat-on-slow.html > > > > I know a lot of people on this list are interested in this topic. But > > I'm curious: if all sites were to start adopting *ahem* "alternative" > > congestion strategies like this, would would the real-world > > ramifications be? Indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that before > > long it'll be a standard Apache option to do what Google does. > > > > Is this the end of the gentleman's internet? Should ISPs detect and > > block/throttle this behavior -- essentially punishing (or overriding) > > this type of behavior to re-establish normalcy? > > > > -david > > > FWIW, I'm in favor of anything that reduces the number of roundtrips. > While I see the rationale behind the slow-start algorithm in HTTP, the > initial window size (and packet size) currently in use is ridiculous. > > Google is right that the IW size should be increased to (at least) 10 > packets. I think I'd have gone for 32 actually. Someone should write > an RFC to change it. > Google and others are working on doing just that. http://www.google.com/research/pubs/pub36640.html > > This reflects the current reality that network latency has become by > far the limiting factor on speed; it's not (or it's rarely) the size > of data being transmitted that limits speed anymore; it's mainly the > number of roundtrip delays. > > Skipping the slow-start algorithm all together as MS is doing is > dubious at best, though. > > Bear > > > > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
