Rick Jones wrote:
Kevin Oberman<ober...@es.net> wrote:
No, you probably won't. Both theoretical and empirical information
shows that overly large windows are not a good thing. This is the
reason all modern network stacks have implemented dynamic window
sizing.
As far as I know, Linux, MacOS (I think), Windows, and BSD (at least
FreeBSD) all do this and do it better then it is possible to do
manually. N.B. Windows XP probably does not qualify as "modern".
Sadly, I see Linux's dynamic window sizing take the window to 4MB when
128KB would do. I'm not familiar with the behaviour of the other
stacks'
There's a huge difference between the window sizes at the ends of a link
and those employed at the various nodes in between:
The end points needs at least bandwidth*latency buffers simply to keep
the flow going, while routers in between should have very little buffer
space, simply because that will allow the end points to discover the
real channel capacity much sooner.
You might claim that a little intermediate buffer space is a good thing,
in that it can allow a short-term burst of packets to get through
without having to discard other useful stuff, but only as long as most
links have spare capacity most of the time.
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
