[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).
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 to read
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 how
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
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 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 application
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
, 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 all that
great
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.
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 OS
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
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 question
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
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 edge
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
: [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 close to a million dollars
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),
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 know what
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
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 achieve
: '[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? I did
some testing once
21 matches
Mail list logo
