> Is it worth adding a check like other checks that are in lwip_init?
Up to 1.3.0, it seems to have been working with WND == MSS. And although this
is not a good idea regarding performance, there are applications where it makes
sense, e.g. if your system is too slow to receive two segments in a
Is it worth adding a check like other checks that are in lwip_init?
Bill
>Alain Mouette wrote:
>> May I suggest that a comment about this be added in the config file.
>>
>> A special page on the wiki about configuring the many buffers in LWIP
>> would be awsome too... This is a very obscure area
Alain Mouette wrote:
May I suggest that a comment about this be added in the config file.
A special page on the wiki about configuring the many buffers in LWIP
would be awsome too... This is a very obscure area in lwip config :(
Please have a look at opt.h (and it's in there for a while no
Continuing this on lwip-devel...
Jan Wester wrote:
Hi
I change my WND to 1024 (2*MSS) and now it works
Thanks Simon and Kieran for your help
Kieran, I studied Jans wireshark logs and indeed it looks a little
strange that the window doesn't open unless it reaches 0, although lwIP
was sendin
Simon,
It worked normally at normal speed, but the reported window size from
lwip kept decreasing until it got to less than the packet length at
which point it would pause as expected. I was having the same problem as
Jan Wester who captured the problem in wireshark.
http://lists.nongnu.org/archi
May I suggest that a comment about this be added in the config file.
A special page on the wiki about configuring the many buffers in LWIP
would be awsome too... This is a very obscure area in lwip config :(
Alain
David Shmelzer escreveu:
Mine works now too.
I was also having the same proble
bobbyb wrote:
It sends 32 packets each with 1500bytes total including all headers. changing
it to PBUF_RAM had no effect :(
Oh, you mean 32 packets? I thought you were talking of 32 bytes per
packet! That's indeed odd. Are you freeing the packets correctly? 32
could be a limitation in your
David Shmelzer wrote:
Thanks Hans.
I was indeed calling tcp_recvd.
Problem was my TCP_WND == TCP_MSS.
I doubled TCP_WND and it now works.
David, did it totally stop working or was it just slow (high latencies)?
The reason I ask is it could be slow with WND==MSS, but it shouldn't
stop working
Thanks Hans.
I was indeed calling tcp_recvd.
Problem was my TCP_WND == TCP_MSS.
I doubled TCP_WND and it now works.
-Original Message-
From: lwip-users-bounces+daves=pmdcorp@nongnu.org
[mailto:lwip-users-bounces+daves=pmdcorp@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of HJ
Sent: Friday, October 16,
Mine works now too.
I was also having the same problem where the window size kept decreasing.
Thanks all.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: lwip-users-bounces+daves=pmdcorp@nongnu.org
[mailto:lwip-users-bounces+daves=pmdcorp@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Jan Wester
Sent: Tuesday, October
Hi
I change my WND to 1024 (2*MSS) and now it works
Thanks Simon and Kieran for your help
Med vänliga hälsningar/Best Regards
Jan Wester
WHI Konsult AB
Scheelegatan 11, SE-112 28 Stockholm
www.whi.se
i...@whi.se
+46 8 449 05 30
+46 705 36 77 22
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: lwip-use
> WND = 512
> MSS = 512
Having WND == MSS is generally not a good idea regarding throughput because
that raises problems both with the nagle and delayed ack algorithm. You should
at least make sure the nagle algorithm is turned off when having WND == MSS,
although you can then still have probl
Hi Kieran
Can you explain the purpose of TCP_WND_UPDATE_THRESHOLD
My
MTU = 1500
WND = 512
MSS = 512
Med vänliga hälsningar/Best Regards
Jan Wester
WHI Konsult AB
Scheelegatan 11, SE-112 28 Stockholm
www.whi.se
i...@whi.se
+46 8 449 05 30
+46 705 36 77 22
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från
13 matches
Mail list logo