[SLUG] Re: Nagle - more on the saga

\begin{Howard Lowndes} > Well, setting TCP_NODELAY in telnet certainly improved things and got rid > of the 200 ms delay between packets, but I still have a problem in that > the packets are still going: > > DATA1 -> ACK1 -> DATA2 -> ACK2 ... > > only now the delay is only the length of the circ

Re: [SLUG] Re: Nagle - more on the saga

On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 05:23:21PM +1100, Angus Lees wrote: > > DATA1 -> DATA2 -> ACK1 -> ACK2 ... > > > > So why is this not happening, or am I misunderstanding here? > > what you want is a nagle algorithm ;) Not at all. What he wants is Delayed ACK. > if you want to combine the writes on you

Re: [SLUG] Re: Nagle - more on the saga

On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Scott Howard wrote: > TCP_CORK is yet another example of Linux bloat. No, quite the opposite. The purpose of TCP_CORK is so that applications using sendfile() don't get hammered by Nagle, which would otherwise need to be handled by bloating the sendfile() implementation wi

Re: [SLUG] Re: Nagle - more on the saga

On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 06:54:37PM +1100, James Morris wrote: > On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Scott Howard wrote: > > > TCP_CORK is yet another example of Linux bloat. > > No, quite the opposite. > > The purpose of TCP_CORK is so that applications using sendfile() don't > get hammered by Nagle, which wo

Re: [SLUG] Re: Nagle - more on the saga

-- Howard. __ LANNet Computing Associates On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Angus Lees wrote: > what you want is a nagle algorithm ;) I originally had Nagle enabled in telnet and was getting 200 ms delays between outgoing pack