> The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT.
We have tried years ago. MTU detection through ICMP is not feasible on
networks you do not control.
> People who block that don't deserve functional apps. Don't cater to them.
Unfortunately the people who block are not the ones who take the hit.
The amoun
>>> The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT. People who block that don't deserve
>>> functional apps. Don't cater to them.
>>
>> Don't cater to people who are using the network they have and don't
>> control? I guess you advocate OpenAFS minimizing its usability?
>
> Minimize, no. Not add marginally us
Derrick Brashear wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Carson Gaspar wrote:
Sean O'Malley wrote:
-icmp shouldn't be used. Some BOFH block/drop icmp.
...
-is there a standard way to do UDP mtu link detection on any platform
already?
The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT. People who block that
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> Sean O'Malley wrote:
>
>> -icmp shouldn't be used. Some BOFH block/drop icmp.
>
> ...
>>
>> -is there a standard way to do UDP mtu link detection on any platform
>> already?
>
> The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT. People who block that don't d
> The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT. People who block that don't
> deserve functional apps. Don't cater to them.
It appears you wish the RFCs were strictly implemented.
That is simply not true in the real world Internet, and
if we want to operate optimally in that world, we have to
deal with the
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 19:06, Carson Gaspar wrote:
Sean O'Malley wrote:
-icmp shouldn't be used. Some BOFH block/drop icmp.
...
-is there a standard way to do UDP mtu link detection on any platform
already?
The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT. People who block that d
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 19:06, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> Sean O'Malley wrote:
>
>> -icmp shouldn't be used. Some BOFH block/drop icmp.
>
> ...
>>
>> -is there a standard way to do UDP mtu link detection on any platform
>> already?
>
> The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT. People who block that don't des
Sean O'Malley wrote:
-icmp shouldn't be used. Some BOFH block/drop icmp.
...
-is there a standard way to do UDP mtu link detection on any platform
already?
The standard is ICMP WOULD FRAGMENT. People who block that don't deserve
functional apps. Don't cater to them.
--
Carson
___
Sean O'Malley wrote:
This is a great idea!
If someone -is- going to do this, I think they would have a few basic
questions.
-does the client/server store the MTU on a per connection basis already?
For a start try:
rxdebug host.name.client -port 7001 -peers.
This shows the mtu the clien
Harald Barth wrote:
I have to say that ifconfig still shows a MTU of 1500.
Yes, your local interface does not know anything about the network further down
the line.
By the way, I didn't get the final point about the "-nojumbo" and
"-rxmaxmtu" params : will they appear in a release soon? An
This is a great idea!
If someone -is- going to do this, I think they would have a few basic
questions.
-does the client/server store the MTU on a per connection basis already?
(how hard is this to implement?) or should the server keep dropping to the
lowest common denominator? Should all servers
One interesting project, for someone who's looking to write something
really useful for OpenAFS, would be to implement path MTU discovery.
This was original an idea for this year's Summer of Code, and it's
description there read ...
OpenAFS uses a UDP based RPC transport called Rx. RX uses
> I have to say that ifconfig still shows a MTU of 1500.
Yes, your local interface does not know anything about the network further down
the line.
> By the way, I didn't get the final point about the "-nojumbo" and
> "-rxmaxmtu" params : will they appear in a release soon? And if yes,
> they wi
> >> My feeling is that #define RX_MAX_FRAG 1 instead of 4 does make
> >> things
> >> behave better if there is packet loss to be expected.
I tried this, and i does really change everything... (mea culpa, there seem to
be packet losses on my line...)
I still come to have ping ~500ms sometimes, bu
Goulou wrote:
My feeling is that #define RX_MAX_FRAG 1 instead of 4 does make
things
behave better if there is packet loss to be expected.
I'll try this. I noticed by searching about this field the existence of a
"jumbo" flag : I suppose it is not in official releases yet, since /sbin/afsd
> I'll try this. I noticed by searching about this field the existence
> of a "jumbo" flag : I suppose it is not in official releases yet,
> since /sbin/afsd -help doesn't mention it? (and using it gives an
> error...)
There is the other behaviour of rx that is packing more than one
(small) AFS d
> My feeling is that #define RX_MAX_FRAG 1 instead of 4 does make
> things
> behave better if there is packet loss to be expected.
I'll try this. I noticed by searching about this field the existence of a
"jumbo" flag : I suppose it is not in official releases yet, since /sbin/afsd
-help doesn'
> Sure it is.
I actually knew that (fortunately...), thus couldn't imagine I was alone in
this situation...
> If there is significant packet loss on the connection, it will go
> slower still.
I agree with you, I don't think my connection has that many losses though.
> (a) the cache is larger
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Harald Barth wrote:
> About AFS:
>
> > If there is significant packet loss on the connection, it will go slower
> > still.
>
> My feeling is that #define RX_MAX_FRAG 1 instead of 4 does make things
> behave better if there is packet loss to be expected.
Also doublecheck your
About AFS:
> If there is significant packet loss on the connection, it will go slower
> still.
My feeling is that #define RX_MAX_FRAG 1 instead of 4 does make things
behave better if there is packet loss to be expected.
About xDSL:
It might be the case that the throttling of TCP compared to th
Frédéric:
Sure it is. In fact I build OpenAFS within AFS across my NAT'd cable
modem connection while using that connection for many other things
at the same time. I regularly access AFS using my cell phone data
connection which is sometimes shared by multiple computers by turning it
into a wifi
Nobody has any idea about this? Isn't AFS designed to be used over "normal"
internet links? Or am I the only one with this slowing-down problem?
I'll be really happy if anybody would help me...
Frédéric Grelot.
- "Goulou" a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to give my users an access t
Hi all,
I'm trying to give my users an access to their home directory over the
Internet, so they can connect to there account from their homes (place, not
directory...).
Unfortunately, my tests show that when a large update occurs to the disk (for
example, the user download a file and puts it
23 matches
Mail list logo
