On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Ben Aitchison <b...@plain.co.nz> wrote: > In my own tests, when I got apalling speeds like that I discovered that the > remote connection had timestamps turned off.
not the problem here. > I'm not sure why you're trying to both raise the starting point as well as > the increment speed. As the normal cap is at 256k anyway. So it can't > increment anywhere. that was just a left over. > What I've been running with for a while is starting at 48k and raising by > 32k increments. Which doesn't appear to be too bad internationally, and > isn't quite as bad when timestamps aren't available. yeah I found bumping to 64k made a big difference too, but for my desktop, i have basically infinite memory, so there's little point trying to find the right number. i went to 256k just to measure the difference. but this isn't a long term fix. starting at 16k is ok, as long as we can get the window bigger. > That said, you realise you can still set the socket buffer size in an > application - like squid, and relayd both support built in hard coding of > socket buffer size. for a server, maybe i'd do so. but i'm not going around patching all the client shit on my desktop (rebuild firefox!?) just for this.
