[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tcp: Implement a two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02.

Am 19.05.2011 um 08:42 schrieb tsuna:

> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Alexander Zimmermann
> <> wrote:
>> If you set the initRTO=0.1s, it's good for me but bad for the rest of the
>> world. That's the difference.
>> Or do you want to implement a lower barrier of 1sec so that you can ensure
>> that nobody set the initRTO lower than 1s?
> Oh, I see. Yes, there is a lower bound (and an upper bound) on what
> values the kernel will accept as initRTO. In the patch "Implement a
> two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02" above, I re-used
> TCP_RTO_MIN and TCP_RTO_MAX in net/ipv4/sysctl_net_ipv4.c in order to
> prevent users from setting a minRTO that's outside this range. They
> are defined as follows in tcp.h:
> #define TCP_RTO_MAX ((unsigned)(120*HZ))
> #define TCP_RTO_MIN ((unsigned)(HZ/5))
> So we're talking about a [200ms ; 120s] range no matter what.

Why is 200ms a valid lower bound for initRTO? I'm aware of
measurements that 1s is save for Internet, but I don't know of any
studies that 200ms is save...

> --
> Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure
> Software Engineer @

// Dipl.-Inform. Alexander Zimmermann
// Department of Computer Science, Informatik 4
// RWTH Aachen University
// Ahornstr. 55, 52056 Aachen, Germany
// phone: (49-241) 80-21422, fax: (49-241) 80-22222
// email:
// web:

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-19 08:55    [W:0.084 / U:0.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site