[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:0.040 / U:1.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site