Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:48:41 +0300 | From | Mika Liljeberg <> | Subject | Re: TCP acking too fast |
| |
kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru 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.
Whatever.
> 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.
Yes.
> 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
Regards,
MikaL - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |