[just discovered in my unsent messages queue from offline composition,
probably not timely, but...]
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> We can't replace path MTU discovery (but hopefully people will start to
> realize ICMP messages were invented for another reason than job security
> for firewalls)
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is the part about TCP that I've never understood: why does it
> send large numbers of packets back-to-back? This is almost never a
> good idea.
Because until you congest the network to the point of dropping packets, a
host has no idea h
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > > On the receive size, the socket buffers must be large enough to
> > > accommodate all the data received between application read()'s,
> > That's not true. It's perfectly acceptable for TCP to stall when the
> > receiving application fails t
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:41:15AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > On the receive size, the socket buffers must be large enough to
> > accommodate all the data received between application read()'s,
>
> That's not true. It's perfectly acceptable for TCP to stall when the
> receiving applic
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On the send size, the application transmitting is guaranteed to utilize
> the buffers immediately (ever seen a huge jump in speed at the beginning
> of a transfer, this is the local buffer being filled, and the application
> has no way to know if
On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 15:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's the argument that pentagon used to justify buying $40 lightbulbs.
> Does not work, sorry.
That is not the argument used to justify buying 40 lightbulbs. They do
not actually purchase 40 lightbulbs, the prices that you see in rag
maga
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 08:29:16AM -0800, Cottrell, Les wrote:
>
> > Strange. Why is that? RFC 1323 is widely implemented, although not
> > widely enabled (and for good reason: the timestamp option kills header
> > compression so it's bad for lower-bandwidth connections). My guess is
> > that the
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 02:25:25PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum quacked:
>
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Joe St Sauver wrote:
>
> > you will see that for bulk TCP flows, the median throughput is still only
> > 2.3Mbps. 95th%-ile is only ~9Mbps. That's really not all that great,
> > throughput wise, IMHO.
Les > The jumbo frames effectively increase the congestion avoidance additive
Les > increase of the congestion avoidance phase of TCP by a factor of 6.
Les > Thus after a congestion event, that reduces the window by a factor of 2,
Jumbo frames helps a lot. Also NAPI in Linux 2.5.x will help a
unday, March 09, 2003 5:25 AM
To: Joe St Sauver
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 923Mbits/s across the ocean
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> you will see that for bulk TCP flows, the median throughput is still
> only 2.3Mbps. 95th%-ile is only ~9Mbps. That's really not a
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> you will see that for bulk TCP flows, the median throughput is still only
> 2.3Mbps. 95th%-ile is only ~9Mbps. That's really not all that great,
> throughput wise, IMHO.
Strange. Why is that? RFC 1323 is widely implemented, although not
widely enabled (
s
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: 923Mbits/s across the ocean
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Cottrell, Les wrote:
> We used a stock TCP (Linux kernel TCP). We did however, use jumbo
> frames (9000Byte MTUs).
What kind of difference did you see as opposed to standard 1500 byte packets?
Hi,
#High speed at reasonable costs are the end-goal. However, it is important
#to be able to plan for when one will need such links, to know what one
#will be able to achieve, and for regular users to be ready to use them
#when the commonly available. This takes some effort up front to achiev
>> High speed at reasonable costs are the end-goal. However, it is
>> important to be able to plan for when one will need such links, to
>> know what one will be able to achieve, and for regular users to be
>> ready to use them when the commonly available. This takes some effort
>> up front to
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Cottrell, Les wrote:
> We used a stock TCP (Linux kernel TCP). We did however, use jumbo
> frames (9000Byte MTUs).
What kind of difference did you see as opposed to standard 1500 byte
packets? I did some testing once and things actually ran slightly faster
with 1500 byte pac
LC> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 13:13:53 -0800
LC> From: "Cottrell, Les"
LC> The link from StarLight to Amsterdam was put in place for a
man 4 dummynet
LC> High speed at reasonable costs are the end-goal. However, it
LC> is important to be able to plan for when one will need such
LC> links, to kno
> With the glossing over of details that goes with press releases there
> appears to be a misunderstanding here. I never said we paid list prices.
> I am well aware that one can get large discounts from vendors. However, I
> think it is important to quote a well known price (in this case list),
>
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:30 PM
To: Cottrell, Les
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: 923Mbits/s across the ocean
> You are modest in your budgetary request. Just the Cisco router (GSR
> 12406) we had on free loan listed at cl
> To paraphrase many a california sufer, "dude, chill out."
When the none of my taxes goes to the silly projects, I will chill out.
It had been stated by the people that participated in this research that
(a) they bought hardware at the prices to help Cisco to make its quarters
(b) they have sp
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 03:29:56PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] quacked:
>
> High speeds are not important. High speeds at a *reasonable* cost are
> important. What you are describing is a high speed at an *unreasonable*
> cost.
To paraphrase many a california sufer, "dude, chill out."
The bleeding
> You are modest in your budgetary request. Just the Cisco router (GSR
> 12406) we had on free loan listed at close to a million dollars, and the
> OC192 links just from Sunnyvale to Chicago would have cost what was left
> of the million/per month.
No, your budget folks have no clue, which they c
LC> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:04:20 -0800
LC> From: "Cottrell, Les"
LC> The remarks about window size and buffer are interesting
LC> also. It is true large windows are needed. To approach
LC> 1Gbits/s we require 40MByte windows. If this is going to be
LC> a problem, then we need to raise quest
I am not normally on this list but someone kindly gave me copies of some of the email
concerning the Internet2 Land Speed record. So I have joined the list.
As one of the PIs of the record, I thought it might be useful to comment on a few
interesting items I have seen, and no I am not trying to
23 matches
Mail list logo
