Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-11 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 11 08:19, Carson Chittom wrote: > Corinna Vinschen writes: > > > On Jan 10 18:21, Steven Hartland wrote: > >> - Original Message - From: "Corinna Vinschen" > >> >Well, the file I downloaded was a self-extracting zip archive and the > >> >file it contains is called Windows6.1-KB98352

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-11 Thread Carson Chittom
Corinna Vinschen writes: > On Jan 10 18:21, Steven Hartland wrote: >> - Original Message - From: "Corinna Vinschen" >> >Well, the file I downloaded was a self-extracting zip archive and the >> >file it contains is called Windows6.1-KB983528-x64.msu, so I'm fairly >> >certain it's the right

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-11 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 10 18:21, Steven Hartland wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Corinna Vinschen" > >Well, the file I downloaded was a self-extracting zip archive and the > >file it contains is called Windows6.1-KB983528-x64.msu, so I'm fairly > >certain it's the right one for an AMD64 system. > > W

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Johan van den Berg
On 10 Jan 2012, at 4:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > What Windows versions are we talking about? Is that pre-Vista? XP, > for instance? If so, setting the buffer size > 64K should have no effect. Destination Windows: Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard 64bit (Intel Xeon) Destination Linux: Linux

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Steven Hartland
- Original Message - From: "Corinna Vinschen" Well, the file I downloaded was a self-extracting zip archive and the file it contains is called Windows6.1-KB983528-x64.msu, so I'm fairly certain it's the right one for an AMD64 system. Windows6.1-KB983528-x64.msu is the file I have here

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 10 17:05, Steven Hartland wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Corinna Vinschen" > >On Jan 10 15:24, Steven Hartland wrote: > >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/983528 > > > >I tried that, but it doesn't install. The installer tells me "The > >update is not applicable to your compute

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Steven Hartland
- Original Message - From: "Corinna Vinschen" Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:28 PM Subject: Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll) On Jan 10 15:24, Steven Hartland wrote: If your running Windows 7 or 2k8 are you running the following hotfix, if not you

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 10 17:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 10 15:24, Steven Hartland wrote: > > If your running Windows 7 or 2k8 are you running the following hotfix, if > > not > > you should try that too, just in case you machine has got a degraded tcp > > stack. > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 10 15:24, Steven Hartland wrote: > If your running Windows 7 or 2k8 are you running the following hotfix, if not > you should try that too, just in case you machine has got a degraded tcp > stack. > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/983528 I tried that, but it doesn't install. The install

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Steven Hartland
t: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:45 PM Subject: Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll) On Jan 10 14:45, Johan van den Berg wrote: On 09 Jan 2012, at 3:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > How's the performance in your scenario when applying the below patch > instead of yours? I

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 10 14:45, Johan van den Berg wrote: > > On 09 Jan 2012, at 3:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > How's the performance in your scenario when applying the below patch > > instead of yours? > > I have to run back with my tails between my legs. I implemented your patch, > and the transfer

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Johan van den Berg
On 09 Jan 2012, at 3:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > How's the performance in your scenario when applying the below patch > instead of yours? I have to run back with my tails between my legs. I implemented your patch, and the transfer speed on a 200ms latency, 10mbit max link went down to 5-6m

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-10 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Jan 9 17:36, Václav Zeman wrote: > -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 repor

Re: socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-09 Thread Václav Zeman
-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 don

socket performance (was Re: Building cygwin1.dll)

2012-01-09 Thread Corinna Vinschen
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