[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: TCP acking too fast wrote:
    > Hello!
    > > The assumption is that the peer is implemented the way you expect and
    > > that the application doesn't toy with TCP_NODELAY.
    > Sorry??
    > It is the most important _exactly_ for TCP_NODELAY, which
    > generates lots of remnants.

    I simply meant that with the application in control of packet size, you
    simply can't make a reliable estimate of maximum receive MSS unless our
    assumption that only maximum sized segments don't have PSH.

    > > Not really. You could do one of two things: either ack every second
    > > segment
    > I do not worry about this _at_ _all_. See?
    > "each other", "each two mss" --- all this is red herring.


    > I do understand your problem, which is not related to rcv_mss.

    I know.

    > When bandwidth in different directions differ more than 20 times,
    > stretch ACKs are even preferred. Look into tcplw work, using stretch ACKs
    > is even considered as something normal.

    I know. It's a difficult tradeoff between saving bandwidth on the return
    path, trying to maintain self clocking, and avoiding bursts caused by
    ack compression.

    > I really commiserate and think that removing "final cut" clause
    > will help you.


    > But sending ACK on buffer drain at least for short
    > packets is real demand, which cannot be relaxed.

    Why? This one has me stumped.

    > "final cut" is also better not to remove actually, but the case
    > when it is required is probabilistically marginal.
    > Alexey


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:08    [W:0.025 / U:2.408 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site