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 u
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:50:36PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:22:14PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >...
> > > Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. In fact, I've reviewed them
> > > four, but two of them did not ap
Hi Adrian,
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:50:36PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:22:14PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >...
> > Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. In fact, I've reviewed them
> > four, but two of them did not apply and the code looked somewhat differe
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 07:22:14PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>...
> Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. In fact, I've reviewed them
> four, but two of them did not apply and the code looked somewhat different,
> so I considered them irrelevant to 2.6.20. I didn't understand that they
>
Hi Ilpo,
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 08:15:52PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > It's possible that new SACK blocks that should trigger new LOST
> > markings arrive with new data (which previously made is_dupack
> > false). In addition, I think this fixes
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> It's possible that new SACK blocks that should trigger new LOST
> markings arrive with new data (which previously made is_dupack
> false). In addition, I think this fixes a case where we get
> a cumulative ACK with enough SACK blocks to trigger the fast
6 matches
Mail list logo
