Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:16:23 +0000 | From | Baruch Even <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] TCP-Hybla proposal |
| |
Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:34:42 +0100 > Daniele Lacamera <mlists@danielinux.net> wrote: >>One last note: IMHO we really need a better way to select congestion >>avoidance scheme between those available, instead of switching each one >>on and off. I.e., we can't say how vegas and westwood perform when >>switched on together, can we? > > The protocol choices are mutually exclusive, if you walk through the code > (or do experiments), you find that that only one gets used. As part of the > longer term plan, I would like to: > - have one sysctl > - choice by route and destination > - union for fields in control block
I'm currently working on a patch to make it a single sysctl, I've got it working (as in, the kernel doesn't crash). I still need to validate the actual implementation.
I'd say the next stage is to merge fields as much as possible.
I doubt the real use of selection by route/dest, all of the high-speed protocols (except possibly for TCP-Hybla) are intended for sender-only servers who push lots of data and should work in all cases and alongside Reno TCP traffic without undue unfairness.
I hope to finish the clean-up and preparation of H-TCP for inclusion in the kernel and can then help with the unionisation.
Baruch - 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/
| |