Hello!
transactions to data segments is fubar. That issue is also why I wonder
about the setting of tcp_abc.
Yes, switching ABC on/off has visible impact on amount of segments.
When ABC is off, amount of segments is almost the same as number of
transactions. When it is on, ~1.5% are merged.
Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
Hello!
transactions to data segments is fubar. That issue is also why I wonder
about the setting of tcp_abc.
Yes, switching ABC on/off has visible impact on amount of segments.
When ABC is off, amount of segments is almost the same as number of
transactions. When
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Alexey Kuznetsov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:37:05 +0400
It looks perfectly fine to me, would you like me to apply it
Alexey?
Yes, I think it is safe.
Ok, I'll put this into
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:44:06 -0700
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I'll put this into net-2.6.19 for now. Thanks.
Did you try this on a desktop system? Something is wrong with net-2.6.19
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:44:06 -0700
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I'll put this into net-2.6.19 for now.
From: Alexey Kuznetsov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:00:45 +0400
Try enclosed patch. I have no idea why 9.997 sec is so magic, but I
get exactly this number on my notebook. :-)
=
This patch enables sending ACKs each 2d received segment.
It does not affect
From: Rick Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:55:16 -0700
Is this really necessary? I thought that the problems with ABC were in
trying to apply byte-based heuristics from the RFC(s) to a
packet-oritented cwnd in the stack?
This is receiver side, and helps a sender who does
Hello!
It looks perfectly fine to me, would you like me to apply it
Alexey?
Yes, I think it is safe.
Theoretically, there is one place where it can be not so good.
Good nagling tcp connection, which makes lots of small write()s,
will send MSS sized frames due to delayed ACKs. But if we ACK
David Miller wrote:
From: Rick Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:55:16 -0700
Is this really necessary? I thought that the problems with ABC were in
trying to apply byte-based heuristics from the RFC(s) to a
packet-oritented cwnd in the stack?
This is receiver side, and
Hello!
Of course, number of ACK increases. It is the goal. :-)
unpleasant increase in service demands on something like a burst
enabled (./configure --enable-burst) netperf TCP_RR test:
netperf -t TCP_RR -H foo -- -b N # N 1
foo=localhost
b patched orig
2
Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
Hello!
Of course, number of ACK increases. It is the goal. :-)
unpleasant increase in service demands on something like a burst
enabled (./configure --enable-burst) netperf TCP_RR test:
netperf -t TCP_RR -H foo -- -b N # N 1
foo=localhost
There isn't any sort
Hello!
There isn't any sort of clever short-circuiting in loopback is there?
No, from all that I know.
I
do like the convenience of testing things over loopback, but always fret
about not including drivers and actual
Regardless, kudos for running the test. The only thing missing is the
-c and -C options to enable the CPU utilization measurements which will
then give the service demand on a CPU time per transaction basis. Or
was this a UP system that was taken to CPU saturation?
It is my notebook. :-)
Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
Hello!
Some people reported that this program runs in 9.997 sec when run on
FreeBSD.
Try enclosed patch. I have no idea why 9.997 sec is so magic, but I
get exactly this number on my notebook. :-)
Alexey
=
This patch enables sending ACKs each 2d
Hello!
Is this really necessary?
No, of course. We lived for ages without this, would live for another age.
I thought that the problems with ABC were in
trying to apply byte-based heuristics from the RFC(s) to a
packet-oritented cwnd in the stack?
It was just the
Hello!
Some people reported that this program runs in 9.997 sec when run on
FreeBSD.
Try enclosed patch. I have no idea why 9.997 sec is so magic, but I
get exactly this number on my notebook. :-)
Alexey
=
This patch enables sending ACKs each 2d received segment.
It does not
16 matches
Mail list logo
